Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Government of London

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This is an unusual occurrence. We are meeting on a Wednesday morning to debate the government of London. We have to hold such a debate in our national Parliament because there is no government of London that can debate the issues affecting the people of this capital city.
Over the years we have had many debates on the issue, and there is a growing consensus throughout London about the need for an elected authority for the capital city. Indeed, ours is the only capital in Europe without a single, elected government. The steady stream of history shows that when cities remove their elected tier of government, or any sort of central authority, chaos ensues. The central government commission of 1837, looking into the administration of the capital, concluded that it was necessary to set up a single authority to deal with London's affairs. That authority eventually became the London county council, which in turn became the Greater London council in 1965.
The GLC had a good record of administration of services, of pioneering work in education, architecture and housing, and of delivering to Londoners real hope for the future. A whole generation of good council housing would not have been possible without the work of the LCC, and later the GLC. Similarly, the body had an imaginative transport policy, and a highly imaginative arts policy—especially in the latter period of the GLC under the able arts section leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
When, in 1983, the Government published their document on the so-called streamlining of government in the major metropolises and in London, the GLC responded with an interesting document called "The Future of the Greater London Council", published in January 1984. It stated prophetically:
There is no doubt whatsoever that in the next 20 years metropolitan areas throughout the world will pose greater and greater problems. For, unlike the United Kingdom, the rapid expansion of metropolitan populations of many other countries increases apace. Every day another 100,000 people join those living in the urban areas of the world. By the turn of the century, it is estimated that over half the world's population will live in metropolitan scale cities. Given this future, what example is this democratic country to set the world in 1984 of how to organise its public affairs to meet the metropolitan needs of its capital city, London?
Despite that statement, and the enormous campaign demonstrating the popularity of a central authority for London, the Government, with their large majority of the

time, hammered through the destruction of the GLC, together with the sale of a large number of its assets. This achieved, not a cut in public spending or a saving on bureaucratic expenditure, but a transfer of power away from democratically elected politicians and accountable officials to wholly unaccountable but equally—if not more—expensive quangos throughout London.
A large number of organisations surrounding London Pride recently produced a document describing the money that London puts into the national Exchequer, and the money that it gets back in return:
Yet for decades London's contribution has been taken for granted. While other European cities have been investing heavily to secure long-term success, so long as central London has seemed crowded with tourists and commuters London has been assumed to be doing all right. Benign neglect is no longer good enough. The time has come for the capital's needs to be recognised and its potential fully realised.
The document goes on to describe what constitutes a world city. London fits all the criteria to qualify as an important world city; the only thing it lacks is a unifying authority that can deal with the serious problems that it faces.
I have mentioned how the government of London has been broken up since the GLC finally went out of existence in 1986. There is, for instance, the sad sight across the river of that empty mausoleum County hall, which has been surrounded by scandals—a point to which I shall return.
All around London we see the problems bequeathed by the lack of a central authority. But more than anything, we must examine what is democratic and what is undemocratic about London. Londoners elect about 1,600 councillors every four years by an elective process. Those councillors are elected to run their local authorities. They take considerable personal financial responsibility for the affairs of those local authorities and risk surcharge and personal debarment from office if they are deemed to have overstepped the mark in any way, whether justifiably or unjustifiably.
However, Londoners have no say in the non-election of an equally large number of people to a series of quangos and appointed bodies all around London. They have enormous access to expenditure— £6 billion a year—they are accountable to no one, they are not open to the public in the way that local authorities are and hardly any of their members are elected to any other body. The Government are essentially appointing their friends to organisations that they think are appropriate to run the affairs of Londoners.
In 1995, it simply is not good enough to say that Londoners do not have the right to elect their own local authority to deal with the important strategic issues facing London. The expenditure of more than £6 billion a year is the responsibility of a mixture of health authorities, housing action trusts, city challenges, London Regional Transport and the London Residuary Body, which manages to get through £72 million a year.
The London Residuary Body sounds like something out of George Orwell. As it was created in 1984, it is highly appropriate that its Orwellian nature should be examined. What is the body for and what has it done? It has an appointed board of directors who are paid. Its job was to oversee the disposal of the assets of the Greater London council and the transfer of its staff.
One of the London Residuary Body's greatest claims to fame must be its treatment of County hall. That building was built by public subscription. It is a fine building for all to see across the river, as are its ancillary buildings, the north and south wings. I make no such claim for the architectural beauty of the island block, having suffered many meetings there in the past in my days as a trade union organiser within the GLC.
What is happening to County hall? When visitors from all over the world come to the House, hon. Members take them out on to the Terrace and point to all the wonderful buildings along the Thames—where the Archbishop of Canterbury lives, the United Nations office, the Shell centre and south bank. But Conservative Members seem to forget about the large building opposite and when visitors ask what it is, they say that it is County hall. When they are then asked whether that is the home of London government, they say, "No, it's empty." The only thing that it seems to be used for is the training of police dogs. They charge up and down the corridors looking for phantom thieves, whereas the thieves are elsewhere around the world at the present time.
We must examine seriously what has happened to County hall. The London Residuary Body told the world that it had sold County hall to a Japanese property speculator known as the Shirayama corporation. I understand that Mr. Shirayama had a wonderful deal with the London Residuary Body in that he did not have to pay any money straight away. He was allowed a considerable delay on payment. I understand that £10 million due under a secret agreement has still not been paid.
The Government intervened on a number of occasions to ensure that the building went to a group of Japanese property speculators rather than the London School of Economics, such was their obsession to ensure that the building was not seen to be in public hands in any way.
The National Audit Office is looking into the matter, which I believe to be a serious scandal. I hope that when it has reported, the Government will be prepared to take action and return County hall to the purpose for which it was always intended—a centre for the government of London.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is it not a fact that that building hosted meetings of huge numbers of organisations, which may have been unstatutory, semi-statutory or fully statutory, representing the people of London in dealing with all-London strategic matters? Is it not also a fact that the final decision about the destruction of one of the finest and oldest civic councils in the world was made by a single leader of the Conservative party because policy is vested in the leader of that party?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. A vendetta against the GLC was promoted by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. She sought to destroy the GLC because it represented a central authority and because of its popularity among people who saw life in London improving under the imaginative policies of the GLC.
The GLC was also a valuable resource for meetings for all kinds of community organisations, groups and others. Under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for

Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the GLC was an incredibly open building. Anyone could go in and hold meetings there. It was a real resource for the people of London. Its destruction is bitterly resented by many people to this day.
The Action for London group has done marvellous work in demonstrating the appalling waste of resources that that empty building represents. I should like to know how much of our money is being spent on guarding, sealing off and securing that empty building, denying its use to the people of London. That is an appalling vista.
In December last year, David Puttnam, in his London lecture, spoke at some length about the artistic merits of London and its abilities to promote good theatre, film, the arts and so on. He said:
Bette Midler once said, in her inimitable and caustic way, 'When it's 3 pm in New York it's still 1938 in London.' And that was before the democratically elected authority for London was wiped out by a vindictive Government eight years ago.
In a very real sense it's not 1930-anything in London. It's far closer to 1890-something and all of us are losing out in consequence. The self-same reasons that led our Victorian fore-fathers to establish the Metropolitan Board of Works and then the London County Council—the need for better planning, better transport, better housing, better education, better public health and civic amenities—all of these are once again zooming up the agenda and crying out for clear and forceful solutions; not solutions thought up by concerned groups of well-intentioned citizens, but long-term strategies argued, implemented and resourced within the framework of the elected and democratically answerable city government.
That is what we are searching for today.
If one wants to know what the people of London think, one must look at the recent polling evidence produced by the Harris research centre for Carlton. There is incredible pessimism about the future of London which I see every day in my community and my constituency. I find it among young people, the unemployed, the homeless, the rootless and the poor in London.
The survey showed that 61 per cent. have no confidence in London's future, an incredible 61 per cent. felt that their children probably would not have jobs when they left school and 77 per cent. believed that the next generation would be unable to obtain decent housing in London. It showed that 17 per cent. were deeply concerned about crime, 16 per cent. about pollution and 15 per cent. about traffic. It showed that 43 per cent. believed that travelling in London had become harder during the past five years and 81 per cent. believed that there was insufficient decent housing in London. When asked whether they thought that there should be an elected council or authority for London, 61 per cent. were for that and only 29 per cent. against. That is an enormous figure.
We must bear in mind all those concerns about the future of the capital city and address them urgently because they are deeply important.
In 1984, the GLC produced a document on ministerial commitments made during the passage of the Local Government Act 1985 which abolished it—page after page of them, from the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on auto-pilot in all-night sittings, droning out soothing words in an attempt to appease my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. He did not succeed one jot, but he tried hard. Those commitments will come back to haunt the Government. I could quote them all, but I do not have time, so I shall simply quote one concerning housing resources.
The right hon. Member for Acton said:
Although the boroughs welcome the chance to take over and manage the GLC stock, I know that many councils and tenants still need reassurance that resources will be available … We have repeatedly made it clear that abolition will leave that total resource to London essentially unchanged. London's HIP allocation will be shared among the boroughs alone without a top slice being pre-empted by the GLC".
He continues:
The distribution of allocations will take account of expenditure liabilities inherited from the GLC … We cannot guarantee the availability of a particular level of resources for London beyond the assurances that we have already given."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 5 February 1985; c. 1107.]
Many of us would be quite happy to get the resources at the level of the assurances that he has already given. My borough and those of every one of my hon. Friends around me are building almost no homes at all at present. Some 12,000 families are on the transfer list in my borough. There are 8,000 on the waiting list. Every homeless family hostel is chock-a-block. Bed-and-breakfast millionaires abound in London. Why? Because of a vindictive attitude by the Government towards expenditure on housing in London. Those are the issues that must be addressed.
Poverty in London is absolutely appalling. London is a city with more than 6 million residents in 2.8 million households. Some 1 million people in London claim income support and 733,000 claim housing benefit. About 831,000 existing households, plus an estimated 250,000 households, need a new dwelling. About 500,000 people live in households with more than one person per room. More than 500,000 households in London share or lack basic amenities. One million people are over retirement age—50 per cent. of them rely on state benefits. Some 40 per cent. of pensioners live alone. As one who spends a lot of time working with or meeting pensioner organisations in London, I can attest to the misery and poverty of many older pensioners in London, particularly the older women pensioners, who have no access to occupational pension schemes. About 400,000 people are registered as unemployed in London, including 100,000 young people and 175,000 long-term unemployed. About 300,000 children live in non-earning households and about 300,000 are eligible for free school meals. Some 100,000 households include lone parents looking after children. Some 780,000 people in London have a limiting long-term illness, including 32,000 children.
Living in London ain't nice. It ain't happy and it ain't healthy, and those issues must be addressed. That cannot be done while we fail to address the need for a central authority for London to tackle those issues. When one looks at the national statistics for poverty, misery and homelessness throughout the country, one finds that the worst areas are all in London. Seven of the 10 poorest parts of the country are in London.

Mr. Tom Cox: The point that my hon. Friend makes is reinforced by a report, "Out of Sight—London's Continuing Bed-and-breakfast Crisis", which I and, I suppose, all hon. Members received today. Is my hon. Friend aware that Wandsworth, the borough that I represent, has one of the worst bed-and-breakfast records in the whole of London? Hundreds of properties are boarded up and are waiting to be sold rather than the council allowing homeless people whose roots are in the

borough to live there. It is interesting that the Minister who will reply to the debate was the leader of the authority that encouraged that policy.

Mr. Corbyn: It is nice of the Minister to be here this morning, as I understand that he is quite busy in the dental surgery some mornings of the week. It is good of him to come at all.
We must look seriously at the problems of homelessness and the misery that it causes in London. What is it like for children to be brought up in bed-and-breakfast hotels? What is it like for their parents? What play space is available? What quality food is available? What cooking space is available? It is not even cheap. It costs us millions each year. People who have been allocated a hostel or bed-and-breakfast place by the local authority, because they are homeless, come to me and ask: "Mr. Corbyn, is it sensible to be paying out several hundred pounds a week for me and my family to live in bed-and-breakfast when the council could buy or build a flat for less than that?" I tell them: "You are absolutely right. The council agrees with you, but it is not allowed to buy or build." It is nonsense and something must be done about it.
The problems of poverty and ill health in London are often related to other factors. Air quality and water quality in London are poor. The quality of air in London is seriously damaging to people's health, particularly during a period of still weather. One in seven of London's children now suffers from asthma. If one goes into any school, particularly infant or primary schools, and goes into the school secretary's office, one will see all the inhalers on a shelf above the secretary's desk, to be given out to particular children at lunchtime. There is an epidemic of asthma among London's children—and, indeed the elderly. If one goes into a children's ward in any hospital, one will find many children suffering from chronic asthma, related—not entirely, but mainly—to air pollution in London. Those issues must be addressed.
Some 150,000 people in London are waiting for access to a hospital bed, to undergo elective surgery. In my own borough, no elective surgery is being carried out until after April. I was trying to explain to somebody from another country how it is unfortunate if someone needs an operation in the latter part of the financial year in London. That person could not understand the concept of having to be ill in the early part of the financial year, not the latter part. Again, we have the nonsense of the internal market and fundamentally unaccountable health authorities that administer Government health policies for London.
Transport—the one area in which the GLC gained the most publicity during its latter years—is the greatest concern to everyone in London, whether they are waiting for a bus that does not come, as the buses are held up on overcrowded and congested roads, or whether they are trying to get on an overcrowded train, paying through the nose for the highest fares anywhere in Europe. London Underground and London Transport as a whole are entirely strapped for cash and unable to invest in the vital new railway and tube lines that are needed. A proposal is made for the Chelsea to Hackney line—a proposal that has been around for a very long time—but then we hear that it is unlikely to be even thought about until the start of the next century, despite there having been reports for the past 30 years of the importance of that particular line.
That area requires the attention of democracy in London. There is a need to address the problems of the democratic deficit in London.
The purpose of the debate is to highlight some of those problems. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends wish to make, I imagine, broadly similar points to those that I have made on health and housing. We must address the problem of the lack of a democratic, accountable authority for London. Londoners need to have some pride in their city as a whole. It cannot be governed by a plethora of 32 boroughs, one City of London, a couple of dozen quangos and a Government office for London, which is handing out Government money through the single regeneration budget without the agreement of elected councillors, or of any elected authorities. Indeed, it is being done solely by an appointed civil servant answerable only to Ministers and not to anyone to do with London.

Mr. Spearing: A gauleiter.

Mr. Corbyn: As my hon. Friend says, a gauleiter for this capital city. Those issues must be addressed.
Once a year, the London Labour Members of Parliament go in delegation to meet the Home Secretary, who is the police authority for London for the time being, and, in a separate meeting, to see the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I used to think that the worst possible way to run a police force was to have the Home Secretary as the police authority, answerable to the House for his actions once a year in an Adjournment debate. I now find that there is something worse—the Home Secretary being the police authority for London, being advised by a group of bankers, appointed by himself, to say how the police authority should be run.
A proposal must be made by the House, at the earliest possible opportunity, for the creation of a new authority for London, which will have responsibilities for overall planning in London. What mad schemes have been approved in the past 10 years to have allowed London to have 22 million sq ft of empty office blocks—office blocks are still being constructed—and no housing programme worth speaking of other than a small number being built by housing associations, and the problems that go with that? Who would have thought that London Transport, the wonder of the world for many people for many years, would now be threatened with privatisation, break-up and deregulation? Our health authorities are unaccountable, with two regional health authorities covering Thames regions, which include London. A London health authority should be involved in a London-wide elected authority. Likewise, why cannot Londoners have a police committee in the same way as other parts of the country?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend skimmed over the question of who owns County hall. I can only go on what I read in, for instance, the Evening Standard. The fellow involved sounds like a crook to me: if he were a Labour councillor, he would probably be surcharged. He uses various aliases; he is known as Mr. Heinz, of the 57 varieties.
If the Minister had any guts, he would deal with the matter on behalf of Londoners and the British people as a whole. I believe that there is a scandal that needs to be investigated. Instead of closing the door when it is all

over, as they did in the case of Barings, the Government should expose the gang of crooks who are supposedly in charge of County hall.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In fact, the National Audit Office is currently investigating the scandal surrounding the sale of County hall to the Shirayama corporation and the gentleman who seems to own it. He goes by a number of aliases, usually the names of types of Japanese motor car. I do not know how many makes of Japanese motor car there are, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has explained on a number of occasions, there seem to be quite a lot. We hear of Mr. Honda, Mr. Toyota, Mr. Mitsubishi and so on.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I offer my hon. Friend some up-to-date information? I walked past County hall a few minutes ago, and absolutely nothing is going on there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, it is a scandal. Both the Minister and the Secretary of State have discussed the matter with me; I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will tell us a little more about what the Government are actively doing about the scandal that is taking place on the other side of the river.

Mr. Corbyn: Those of us who have lived through the saga of the abolition of the GLC and the sale of County hall will not allow it to be swept under the carpet. We will persevere, because we want the building back in public hands and public use rather than the obscenity that it is now.
I believe that there is a strong case for an elected government for London, with responsibilities for overall planning, transport, health, a police authority and a housing strategy to tackle homelessness and the social, health and economic cost of poor-quality housing. There should also be a co-ordinated and supportive strategy for the development of the arts in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West had an excellent record as chairman of the GLC arts committee, providing access to the arts for all people: minority tastes of all sorts were catered for. That was an exciting period of growth in the arts—film, theatre and other entertainments—throughout London. All those facilities are now threatened; indeed, many of them have closed. That is very sad.
Similarly, the Inner London education authority used to manage expenditure on education. However, its resources for the arts, music, out-of-London pursuits, adult education and many other things have been destroyed with ILEA itself.
It is also crucial for London to address the problems of its economy. As I said earlier, there are 400,000 registered unemployed people in London, but I believe the number of people out of work to be closer to half a million. Half a million members of a population of 6 million want to work but cannot find jobs.
In its latter days, the GLC did its best to rebuild some of London's manufacturing industry, to encourage different areas of enterprise, to put money into co-operatives and to support those who tried to produce quality goods and services. It was very difficult, because the GLC's powers to act within local government legislation were limited. I believe that a new elected authority for London should have overall strategic responsibility for all the matters that I have mentioned, and powers to rebuild and plan London's economy.
Are we to go forward into the 21st century as a city with an incredibly rich minority of people living in certain high-security enclaves—as described by Richard Rogers in the past few weeks in his Reith lectures on the radio—and a mass of poor people living on high-crime, poor-quality estates, looking forward to a life of unemployment and surrounded by filth, degradation and destruction?
London can be an exciting and wonderful place in which to live, but it requires planning, direction and vision. I do not believe that that vision is fulfilled by a plethora of quangos composed of Tory placemen, and by the scandals and sleaze that surrounded the destruction of the GLC. I hope that today's debate will strengthen the case for an elected authority to make London the city that it can, should and—I believe—must be.

Mr. James Couchman: I hesitate to intrude on a debate about London. Let me clarify my provenance: for eight years I served as a London councillor in Bexley. Moreover, I believe that my constituency would be viewed as part of the 'Thames gateway by the all-seeing, all-powerful body offered to us by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) as a new government for London. I think it entirely inappropriate for the Medway towns—which include my constituency, 30 miles out of London—to be subject to government from County hall, or by some new body in London.
I well remember that, when I was a Bexley councillor, the council governed very well. As a near-unitary authority, it provided social services, housing, education, roads, parks, leisure facilities and many other benefits. My only recollection of the GLC is of a body that intruded into minor planning applications and housing matters. Exercising an extraordinary policy of municipalisation, it bought houses scattered all over the place. Far from acting as a strategic authority, it was a nuisance authority.
The last days of the GLC were marked by a bizarre campaign against the Government's proposals to do away with it. The hon. Member for Islington, North described the GLC's popularity—revealed, he said, in that great campaign at the end of its life. The so-called popular campaign, however, involved the expenditure of a seven-figure sum on advertising and other PR material, sent out from County hall under the auspices of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Tony Banks:: How can the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that, years after the abolition of the GLC, the most recent opinion polls show that 66 per cent. of Londoners still believe that we should have a strategic authority for the capital?

Mr. Couchman: I set as much store by those polls as I do by some other current opinion polls. What London really needs is a strengthening of the government of its boroughs.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my hon. Friend believe that that opinion poll—or, indeed, any poll—has informed Londoners about how much they have saved as a result of the GLC's abolition? It is probably £200 a year.

Mr. Couchman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Indeed, it was one of the main reasons why we did away with the GLC.
The hon. Member for Islington, North also mentioned ILEA, one of the most bloated education bureaucracies that the country has ever had.

Mr. Spearing: What?

Mr. Couchman: Precisely so. It would be entirely inappropriate to foist ILEA on London again.
My message to any new London body would be, "We do not want you in north Kent." We want unitary authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering their establishment. If we are to have good governance in our part of Kent., we must have nothing to do with London. We certainly do not want a new Greater London council, stretching to the M25 and beyond—stretching to the Medway towns as part of the Thames gateway—as suggested in recent reports of Labour's thinking. My message to the hon. Member for Islington, North is, "Hands off the towns of north Kent." If there is to be a co-ordinated development of the Thames gateway, it will be better organised by central Government than by some new GLC.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who appeared to have two reasons for his view. One, understandably, was his experience of the GLC as a Bexley councillor. I assume that he played some part in the legal affair that was responsible for the destruction of "Fares Fair", which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Couchman: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing: He says no, but I think that it was a Kent and Bexley initiative.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: It was Bromley.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend corrects me: it was Bromley, which is next door.
The remarkable feature of the speech by the hon. Member for Gillingham, who is not a London Member, was that he accused a possible future Greater London authority or the GLC of the time of having designs upon north Kent and the Medway towns—a proud and ancient area which was related to London in function and history. I have heard no suggestion at any time that a Greater London authority should extend its boundaries thus far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me where he got his false accusation from.

Mr. Couchman: I understand that there has been a suggestion in the Evening Standard.

Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Gentleman believes everything that he reads in the Evening Standard, including an inaccurate account last week of my history, which said that I attended a public school, although I went to a grammar school in Hammersmith, it shows the standard of his judgment publicly and in this place. I shall ask him about another matter. I am a past member of the transport planning and highways committee of the GLC, to which I was co-opted at different times.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment(Sir Paul Beresford): So the hon. Gentleman is to blame, then.

Mr. Spearing: I shall shortly take great pleasure in dealing with highways.
The hon. Member for Gillingham said that that committee and the GLC, using its powers as a strategic planning authority—at one time I was a leading member of part of the planning committee for north-west London—interfered in minor planning applications. Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of that?

Sir Paul Beresford: I shall give an example relating to the renovation of an estate on the edge of the constituency of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is not in his place. As is normal, there were consultations with tenants and postmen about the numbering of the flats on the estate. Those consultations were concluded in a short time, but it took five months to get a decision from the GLC. That was interference in a minor, insignificant planning issue.

Mr. Spearing: I asked for an example and the Minister has given one. If that delay occurred, it must have had some sort of statutory basis and the GLC must have had some responsibility in that matter. Perhaps the Minister could respond to that at a later date rather than delaying our proceedings now. Speaking as a former part-time student postman—[interruption] This issue is not funny. Too many Conservative Members do not understand real life. That is why they are in trouble. As a former post person I know that it is important to get a good numbering sequence. If the Minister engages in canvassing, he will know that that is the case.
I do not say that that justifies what the GLC did. It may not, because bad mistakes can be made in any organisation, and especially in the Government. The strategic planning of London was destroyed, as was the coherent traffic planning of London, which brings me to the matter of highways. The GLC introduced delayed traffic signals and the first freeways, and that was done after exhaustive consultation, in which I was involved, with each borough. It was broken up by Baroness Thatcher who dispersed coherent planning in London not only for roads but for transport.
I shall now turn to "Fares Fair". That was upset by Bromley council through a legal point which destroyed the concept of public transport introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East with great boldness and initiative. The people of London look back to that time. A public transport system needs to have as many people using it as possible so that fares can be reduced. That applies especially to the underground, which can carry more people because of its infrastructure. That was the vision of the late Lord Ashfield and of Herbert Morrison, who together created the former London Transport. That has been destroyed by the Conservative party.
I shall give an example of how current fares are unfair. After years of development, the docklands light railway, which is the responsibility of the Government, still does not run at weekends. That is because the concept is wrong. An extension of that railway is planned to Lewisham. A Bill has gone through the House so that the line can run from Island Gardens in the Isle of Dogs under the river to Greenwich and then to Lewisham. That is a much-needed

link. It is to be privatised and not long ago I saw a commentary in a business paper about who would take over. It stated that on that commuter route to the extraordinary development in Canary Wharf in the Isle of Dogs—which, incidentally, did not receive the necessary planning permission—it was probable that a premium fare could be charged. That was to be an attraction for the investor.
"Fares Fair" is one thing, but fares are unfair and not just in the general proportion of revenue which is so high in London compared with the rest of the world. That is an example of fares being jacked up on a line for which the capital investment has been put up by the public. Currently, public subsidy for the DLR is 70p per passenger mile. That information was contained in an answer a few days ago. That shows the disintegration of public transport in London for which Conservatives are wholly responsible and which the Minister appears to defend.

Sir Paul Beresford: In the context of the GLC's relationship to London docklands and the railways, it is worth pointing out that the GLC in combination with the five Labour boroughs failed to do anything for docklands for years. That railway is there because the GLC failure was recognised by the Government and docklands was taken away and we got rid of the GLC.

Mr. Spearing: I knew the chairman of the former docklands joint committee, the late Councillor Percy Bell, who was a well-known east London councillor of great sagacity and who gave great service. The docklands joint committee produced an outline for docklands. One of its publications in the early days dealt with a transport spine for tube, bus or tram. That committee considered the need for the DLR, but it was disrupted by the work of a certain leader of the GLC, Sir Horace Cutler, who did not co-operate in the way that the boroughs had been co-operating.
The President of the Board of Trade, who at the time was the Secretary of State for the Environment, opened new houses built under the Becton district plan produced by the borough of Newham. The marshes had to be drained and I understand that a year's public investment of the then Thames water authority, on which elected members from the GLC sat, was absorbed on draining that area from Tewksbury to London. That was instituted by the committee. Therefore, the hon. Member for Gillingham was not correct in his history. That land, a third of my constituency, went under the suzerainty of the London Docklands development corporation, which had powers for planning and borrowing and for goodness knows what, literally to do anything under the Bill. When the statutory instrument came to the House for a one and a half hour debate and although a third of my constituency and half the LDDC area was involved, I did not get the opportunity to speak. That shows the authoritarian nature of Conservative Members. Even if a body such as the LDDC was needed, it should have been accountable to this elected House rather than to the Secretary of State.
I have unexpectedly used some illustrations which were given by Conservative Members. I could go on. What about the new towns? Could any organisation in the world have produced those? They were the pride of Britain after the war. The education service has been mentioned. It was economical and was one of the greatest education institutions in the world. I shall give an example. When


the Conservative party wanted to break up the London county council education service in 1963 or 1964 when the GLC succeeded the LCC, there was tremendous debate in London. It was saved because the LCC had a comprehensive series of occupational and adult education courses throughout London. Those were well known because of the Floodlight booklets—attempts are still made to publish them. Specialist colleges all over the place had been built up to a peak of professional expertise. Where those colleges were sited in each borough was a matter of chance, but let us consider what happened when the LCC was split up into boroughs.
I shall not name the borough nor the well-known institution, but one highly specialist college on medical matters had a worldwide reputation. People not just from all over London, but from the south-east used to travel up to it at night and at weekends. That college, in a central London location, was in the hands of the local borough. The borough pressed for money for that college, and we know why. When that request came before the relevant committee, the elected councillors asked, not unnaturally, how many of the college's students came from the borough. When they were told 5 per cent., the response was, "We can't have that," and that college disappeared.
Further and higher education and training are all the rage. The break-up of the further, higher and technical education systems of inner London, which the hon. Member for Gillingham may describe as bureaucratic, is one of the greatest losses to education. That happened at the flick of a finger of the noble, or less than noble, Baroness Thatcher.
In Newham, we have to spend £8 million of our standard spending assessment on the homeless because the formula agreed by the Minister and his senior colleagues does not provide enough money for the homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned that problem. That £8 million has to be shaved off education and social services to meet our statutory responsibilities. Some of the homeless in our borough are transferred to us from Westminster. The council bought up private houses which it cannot sell through private enterprise, so it is housing the statutory homeless in them. That is good for them, but the system is rotten, bad and retrogressive.
Democratic accountability is at the heart of the issue. It has been attenuated in London to a degree that the Scots would find absolutely unbelievable. What remains of the London borough administration is being hogtied by the vicious standard spending assessment and revenue support grant formulae. They are causing revolts in the shires, so one can imagine the effect that they are having in east London, in particular, the deprived boroughs of which have such well-known problems.
As for the police, Sir John Quinton has been appointed chairman of the advisory committee to the Home Secretary. He has been given that job not on the grounds of policing criteria, but because, as is clear from correspondence, of his expertise in budget cutting and budget allocation. Although the advisory committee has a wide remit and people have been appointed to it by the Home Secretary, it is steering towards economies. It is not focusing on how the police can do their job in association with Londoners. It is considering how the police can operate with reduced finances.
There will be a great deal of debate later today on democratic accountability and the democratic deficit. One of the biggest democratic deficits nearest the House is the governance of London. Even before there is an elected authority for London under another Government, I hope that combined representatives of the boroughs could get together on a non-statutory basis. Perhaps that group could incorporate some aspects of the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Administration. I hope that the Under-Secretary would agree that that group could, during whatever life remains in the Government, through consensus, come to some conclusions about London. Even the Government have found through their encouragement of London First, London Pride and from all the programmes, as well as organisations concerning London that are multiplying and holding conferences all over the place, that a vacuum needs to be filled. That vacuum must be filled by a proper and proud successor to the LCC and GLC to serve the people of London in the next century.

Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I am not one of those hon. Members who believe that everything that the GLC did was wrong. It did a great deal of good work, but in the latter years of its existence it did a great deal of harm.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested that there was a tremendous force outside the House to recapture a government for London. He mentioned an opinion poll in which 66 per cent of respondents were in favour of that. I do not know where that opinion came from—possibly from the Evening Standard—but I should not attach too much credence to that opinion poll if the hon. Gentleman pooh-poohs some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), which also came from the Evening Standard. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we cannot be too selective when quoting from that newspaper.
Although I represent a constituency that is about 250 miles from London, I live here during the week; I have lived in three London boroughs and had six years' experience in local government. I therefore have a good idea of what certain Opposition Members mean by democratic accountability. What I perceive as important and as democratic accountability is not necessarily shared by some Opposition Members.
From time to time, I agree with some of the things that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West says. If what he said about London was correct, I would be fighting to catch your eye this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. A number of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies share my concern at what happened in the GLC in its latter years and do not want a London-wide authority, so their absence this morning is understandable. If there is such strength of opinion among Opposition Members about the need for such an authority, I should have thought that far more Opposition Members would be present. Apart from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Front-Bench spokesman and the Opposition Whip, however, we have only the hon. Members for Newham, South, for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for


Newham, North-West. The latter two Members are here, of course, and they represent all the things that many of my hon. Friends and I found unacceptable in the GLC.

Mr. Couchman: Champagne socialists.

Mr. Banks: I do not know about that. I used to get the Refreshment Department bills of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, which was an interesting experience, until I finally managed to sort out the Department. I do not know about champagne socialism, but a vast amount of ratepayers' money was wasted in the final years of the GLC. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham asked how much money was wasted. An independent survey—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may wish to comment on this—has suggested that if the GLC had been allowed to continue, it would have spent £1.5 billion. And for what? I am not convinced that Londoners would have received a better service.
I should like to compare and contrast briefly my experience of so-called democratic accountability because my constituency is in one of the large metropolitan areas of the north-west. I do not wish to be ruled out of order, so I shall be extremely careful to make those comparisons briefly.

Mr. Tony Banks: I must record my appreciation of the hon. Gentleman paying my bills from the Pugin Room from time to time. He just said that the GLC, had it still existed, would have spent £1.5 billion. He asked what that would have been spent on. A quick list includes new towns, seaside and country homes, housing, the London mobility scheme, the south bank arts complex, London Transport, London's waste disposal, the fire brigade—the GLC used to run the ambulance service and there were no complaints then—historic houses such as Kenwood and Marble Hill, the magistrates courts, bridges, tunnels, the Woolwich ferry, the Thames barrier, the national sports centre and strategic parks. I could go on. That is a lot of money, but what a lot of good services.

Mr. Banks: Now that the hon. Gentleman has made his speech, perhaps he will give way to me. I accept that a great deal of money was spent, but many of those services are continuing without the madcap ideas that were evident when the hon. Gentleman was in office. I think that he was a Member of Parliament when he moonlighted from time to time as chairman of the GLC. I do not believe for one moment that there is a great weight of opinion outside the House or, indeed, among Labour Members, for the return of a London-wide authority.

Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend is dealing with the democratic deficit, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Does he agree that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are in fact calling for a fourth tier of government in London? If their proposals were accepted, we should have the boroughs, central Government with their Minister for London, Members of the European Parliament and a London-wide authority.

Mr. Banks: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his point in his own way. If Labour Members had the opportunity to institute an authority similar to the

GLC, there would be enormous increase in bureaucracy but not necessarily an improvement in the services provided for the people of London.
I have lived in three London boroughs—Wandsworth, Westminster and Lambeth. My colleagues have talked about waste, and I must say that services in Lambeth have certainly improved since Labour lost control there. It was something of a novelty for my wife and me to look out of the bedroom window the other day and see someone sweeping the street.
I shall pick up a number of points made by the hon. Member for Islington, North. He referred to County hall being used for meetings of non-statutory organisations. That conjured up in my mind a picture of senior citizens meeting for various cultural activities. However, he did not mention the fact that the GLC was often used as a platform for political campaigning at the ratepayers' expense and for promoting organisations with which I suspect that most of his constituents would not have agreed had they been asked. However, it was not only at the GLC that such things happened.
The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the police. I remember the days of the Greater Manchester police authority, in those days an offshoot of Greater Manchester council. It spent an enormous amount of money—hundreds of thousands of pounds—on a police monitoring unit. Vast sums of council tax payers' money were spent on hindering the police in the apprehension of criminals.
The hon. Member for Islington, North was very unfair to our health services. He may have been describing what is happening in the capital and other urban conurbations, but in financial terms local health services are now far better planned than ever before. We no longer experience the kinds of difficulties at the end of the financial year that he described. Not only in London but in my constituency there have been vast increases in the resources provided to the national health service, and they mean that the concerns expressed all too flippantly by the hon. Gentleman pale into insignificance.
Certainly, my constituents had to wait for the election of the Conservative Government in 1979 to get the brand new hospital that they now enjoy—Lord Healey had cut the hospital building programme so savagely when he was Chancellor because the Labour party got the economy into such a mess, and I have no doubt that if it were ever to be in power again we should find ourselves in the same mess because it wasted money nationally just as it wasted money at the GLC.
The hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned the use of County hall. I noticed that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is no longer in the Chamber, did not give the name of the individual whom he was accusing. I think that he has a duty to do so. It is generally understood in the House that the National Audit Office is examining some of the issues to which he referred. The NAO is respected and I have no doubt that, as and when it reports, we shall listen carefully to what it has to say and take appropriate action if necessary.
The fact that it is necessary to use today's business to raise matters relating to London does not worry me in the slightest. We do not need a talking shop costing millions and millions of pounds just across the river. Hon. Members have the opportunity to raise issues relating to their constituencies and regions, as they are doing now.
The hon. Members for Islington, North and for Newham, South also mentioned transport. The hon. Member for Islington, North is perhaps not aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has recently made a number of important announcements on air pollution following a report by those who take an interest in pollution, not least the Select Committee on Transport. I greatly welcome the opportunity to tighten the MOT test in respect of exhaust emissions.
It is the buses and lorries in London that create much of the pollution, and diesel-powered vehicles are the greatest polluters. It is those vehicles that we should be examining. If Labour Members are concerned about reducing congestion in London, they might like to suggest that a London borough such as Newham could institute a pilot scheme with the help of the Department of Transport to introduce road pricing so that we could see how it works and how it might benefit London. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, South laughs—he is a great cyclist, but I do not recall the GLC doing a great deal for cyclists when it was in a position to do so.
Unitary authorities—the London boroughs—now have the opportunity to make sensitive decisions affecting their areas. They are extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to be unitary authorities and I look forward to the day, in the lifetime of this Parliament, when my constituency will get back to the position in which it was before 1974 and does not have to do as it is told by members of the Labour party who have a majority on the Merseyside passenger transport authority, who could not give two hoots about spending money in my constituency and who abuse their position. I look forward to the day when my constituency has the same system of unitary government as London.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: We have heard a remarkable amount of old rubbish from the Conservatives. It is striking that they cannot find a London Member to defend the effects of the abolition of the Greater London council but have to drag in an hon. Member from Southport to drone on about matters on which he is ill informed. The GLC established a cycle unit and introduced cycle routes across much of London, but since abolition the programme has not been developed.
We still see the achievements of the old London county council and the GLC. There is hardly a road, a public housing scheme or a hospital—hospitals were once run by County hall—that those two forms of local government did not help to create. They created London as we know it, certainly to a greater extent than any other force or organisation. It is a record of which we are proud—a dramatic and tremendous achievement in rebuilding London after the war, but it is now being lost. Everyone in London today feels that it is less worth living in this city than it was a decade ago. Opinion polls conducted by the Evening Standard chart that progress year by year.
I have heard the Under-Secretary of State ask what the GLC did about the docklands. We created the infrastructure that the London Docklands development corporation inherited. It then stepped in and the legislation involved wasted the best part of 18 months as it went through Parliament.
We have been asked about transport. I remember Sir Horace Cutler, under the Tory administration between 1977 and 1981, proposing that we should build the Jubilee

extension into docklands. It was blocked by the Treasury. When I became leader of the GLC in 1981, we proposed that the Jubilee line should be extended to docklands. It was blocked by the Treasury. If County hall had been allowed to get its way, the Jubilee line would have opened and would have been running for the past seven years, and because we never borrowed money to build such projects—we paid for them out of the rates—we would not have incurred the debts created now that the Government have finally got round to the project 15 years later. We were planning to go on to build the Chelsea to Hackney link, which would probably have been operating by now as well.
County hall thought in London's interest, which meant inevitable conflicts. Whenever there was a Conservative Government and a progressive administration in County hall, there was conflict. In 1896, Lord Salisbury complained that the then Liberal administration at the London county council was practising socialistic and revolutionary schemes and proposed that the LCC should be abolished. When Herbert Morrison was creating what I think was a marvellous record of municipal enterprise and achievement in the 1930s, Conservative Members of Parliament were demanding that the LCC be wound up. We saw the same thing in the late 1950s, when boundaries were extended in the hope of creating permanent Tory control. Finally, when Mrs. Thatcher was in power she had a big enough majority to push through the lunacy which had been defeated on previous occasions and London has lost out.
We heard allusions from Southport that the GLC did barmy and dreadful things. I will tell the House what I am proud of. I am proud that the GLC took up the issue of racism in London. I am proud that we took up the issue of women's interests being neglected in London and tried to make local government respond more to their needs. I am proud that the women's committee funded dozens of child care schemes across London. I am proud that we took up the rights of lesbians and gays in London. I am not ashamed of those things. We moved those issues to the centre of the political agenda as those groups were not achieving their full potential because they were suffering from discrimination. It is a legitimate right for those elected to represent London to represent all Londoners, whether they are women or black and irrespective of their sexual orientation. I shall not go on any longer as I know that we have to fit in two more speeches.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on initiating this important debate, which has, although it has been short, provided an excellent opportunity to highlight many very important issues. It is somewhat surprising that, from the Conservative Benches, we have heard only from the hon. Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Southport (Mr. Banks). No Conservative Member who represents London, other than the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), who will respond, has spoken. That is perhaps indicative of the way in which the Government—

Mr. Booth: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: No, I shall not give way as we have very little time. It is indicative of the way in which the Government have treated London with contempt.
There is so much in London about which we can be proud. The city boasts a whole range of attributes and qualities, which make it a vibrant and exciting place to live in, to work in and to visit. London's rich legacy of history and fine buildings, magnificent parks and outstanding cultural attractions, its impressive, if somewhat neglected, river, its cosmopolitan and multi-cultural atmosphere, and many more attributes, make it a unique and great city.
I am sad to say that there is another side to London, too much in evidence in recent years, which tarnishes the bright spots and raises real fears for the city's future. London now suffers from a higher level of unemployment than almost anywhere in Britain—second only to the north in the proportion of people out of work, it having lost 470,000 jobs in the past seven years alone.
That of course relates to London as a whole, but when one looks at the specific problems in the most deprived areas of London, as the Evening Standard did in its important and disturbing survey of life in east London, entitled "The Betrayed", the characteristics highlighted are more representative of what one might see in the third world than in the capital of one of Europe's leading countries. It is made all the worse by its proximity to the gleaming office blocks of Canary wharf and the affluence of the City.
The devastating loss of manufacturing industry has left London's economy seriously unbalanced, and over-dependent on services. In the week in which we have seen the collapse of Barings, we should not be complacent about a city which is over-dependent on financial services for its economy.
Not only are there serious questions to be asked about London's economy, but the city is facing an acute transport crisis, as a result of years of under-investment—points well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—coupled with an abject failure to recognise the damage being caused by ever-worsening traffic congestion. That means that people cannot move quickly and cheaply around the city and far too many of our children are suffering from the appalling incidence of asthma, of which traffic-generated air pollution is unquestionably one of the major contributory causes.
While I mention health, what can one say about a city whose once proud hospitals are facing closure as a consequence of the crude political vandalism of the Department of Health? Hard-working and dedicated doctors and nurses are demoralised and angered by ill-considered cuts. Patients, London's long-suffering public, are infuriated by the incompetent decision making and administrative bungling of the Secretary of State for Health and her army of highly paid accountants, administrators and assorted quangocrats.
Before we leave the subject of health, I cannot fail to mention the London ambulance service, which is staggering from one crisis to the next, bedevilled by malfunctioning computers—the telephone system went down yesterday. Despite all the Secretary of State's

promises of improvement, it is turning in far and away the worst performance figures of any ambulance service in Britain.
Behind all the statistics and all the evidence of London not coping as well as it should, there lies one inescapable and fundamental theme, to which everyone who has looked seriously at the issue returns without exception. London is seriously disadvantaged by the lack of its own city-wide government. Unique among European capitals, unique, indeed, among capital cities in the developed world, London has no single voice speaking up for the city and representing the views and aspirations of its citizens. Instead, London suffers from fragmentation, from divided and unclear responsibilities and from the malign consequences of the excessive centralisation of decision making, which has become such a hallmark of the Government, who, ironically, when they came to power, pledged to devolve power rather than to centralise it.
It is not just the accumulation of power by Ministers that is causing concern; the proliferation of quangos and other undemocratic institutions is too. They have been established in breach of Tory promises. Let us look back to the Second Reading debate on the Bill which abolished the GLC. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, Lord Jenkin, could not have put it more clearly. He argued that the fears expressed—not only by the Labour party but by several Conservative Members—about centralisation of power and proliferation of quangos were ill founded. He said:
They say that, after abolition, Whitehall will take over. Wrong again. Only 5 per cent. of service spending in London, and virtually none outside London, will go outside local government. They say that the abolition councils will be replaced by quangos. Wrong again. Only two permanent new appointed bodies will be created".—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 36.]
With huge swathes of spending on London Transport, health, urban regeneration, employment and training all taken out of the hands of democratically elected local bodies and vested in the hands of Ministers, and a whole swathe of quangos administering services all over London, the judgment of Lord Jenkin is about as spectacularly inaccurate as the failure of Mr. Nick Leeson to judge the movement of the Tokyo stock market. The consequences for London have been about as disastrous as the consequences for Barings.
Instead of a democratically elected London-wide authority speaking up for London in the national and international arena, we have a whole series of fragmented initiatives. As the Evening Standard rightly and aptly reminded us yesterday, by printing Tony Travers's excellent article entitled, "Why Paris is pulling ahead of London", we are losing out in the international arena because others are doing things better. Jacques Chirac, the right-wing mayor of Paris, has no illusions about the important role of the city government that he leads.
Paris' ambition is to lay claim to the title of European capital by the year 2000
is his unequivocal objective. His publicity machine has little difficulty in putting the knife into London. Paris, he boasts, with justification,
has a high performance transportation infrastructure.
The contrast with London could not be more striking.
London has suffered disastrously in the nine years since the abolition of the GLC, and Londoners are crying out for the restoration of a democratic city-wide authority to


fight for their interests and to oversee the future planning and development of their city. London needs a strategic authority that can promote London's interests in Europe and throughout the world, that can attract vital new inward investment, which is so critical to our capital city's future, and that can begin the long hard process of rebuilding industry, jobs and hope in London's devastated areas—most notably in east London.
London needs a strategic authority that can plan the new transport policies that are vital to unblock the congested arteries of our city, to ensure a substantial shift from the use of private vehicles to public transport and, in doing so, to clean up the city's polluted atmosphere that is so damaging to the health of our children and to the attractiveness of our city to visitors.
Economic development, transport planning, land-use planning, oversight of London's environment and all the strategic functions that cannot be carried out by individual London boroughs should and will be given back to a democratically elected city-wide authority by the next Labour Government. We will consult widely in due course about the city-wide responsibilities that the new authority may assume, including, possibly, the role of the police authority and the oversight of health policy. As we have already made clear, that authority will be a streamlined and lean body, not involved in day-to-day service delivery, which is best handled at a local level. It will focus on the big issues, the issues that need to be planned and co-ordinated across the whole of London, the issues which are fundamental to the success and vitality of our capital city in the 21st century. The Labour party will give back to Londoners their rightful say on the government of their city and, in doing so, will give London back its pride, its self-esteem and control over its destiny.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Of course, the Opposition's proposals would give London a huge bill and more bureaucracy. That is what we should concentrate on. The two most important points about the government of London arc the quantity of government—we already have quite enough—and the quality of government. There is a strong link between the two. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) talked about a "streamlined" authority. That is the word that the Opposition used when they set up the GLC and the LCC. What did we get? Bloated bureaucracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Government set it up."] They were wrong—absolutely wrong. [Interruption.] That is right, and it was wrong.
As the quantity of government grows, so the quality of government drops. Many of the calls that we now hear for a new strategic authority for London are totally misconceived. There would be an extra layer of government, and that would solve nothing. We do not want more bureaucrats, bigger bills or slower decisions on even minor matters. I, too, was a child postman. We want less but higher-quality government. We want local government to work with the private sector and to adopt the standards of efficiency and customer service that we expect and receive predominantly from the private sector.
Opposition Members have quoted the Evening Standard. I should like to quote The Economist which, in August, after detailed consideration of the government of London, concluded:
a big central authority for London was likely to damage, not enhance London's long-term economic interests.
The city, The Economist said,
can continue to adapt and grow flexibly without central planning".

Mr. Corbyn: That is the City.

Sir Paul Beresford: I am not referring to the City of London; I am talking about London. Opposition Members have not defined the city of London. Interestingly, they have very carefully not stated any borders. The article also said that
London's fragmentation was a source of strength rather than weakness. The lesson for rising megacities is that a central strategic authority is not essential for prosperous growth. Self-governing neighbourhoods work better than a single city hall and are a safer base for an urban economy".
Reference was made to ILEA and to the fact that it had good services for adults. I accept that, but it needed to do so. ILEA tested the IQ of London children aged five and found that it was average, but, after 11 years of ILEA education, the IQ test showed that the standard had dropped. That is why London needed adult education.
It is against the background of less but better government that we look to the principles of promoting the role and responsibility of the individual and freedom from unnecessary regulation and over-government. The Government have a key role. We seek to empower the individual and reduce bureaucracy, particularly when the latter serves no purpose. The lesson of London during the 1980s was too much government, gerrymandering government, and too much waste. [HON. MEMBERS: "Westminster."] The housing of London is where the gerrymandering was done. The GLC gerrymandered housing throughout London. One needs only to see the mess—

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: No. I have only five minutes. Mr. Corbyn: Just on Westminster?

Sir Paul Beresford: No. We will not refer to Westminster. We may refer to Roehampton, which I happen to know even better than Opposition Members do. That was a GLC gerrymander if ever I saw one.
As I have said, the lesson of London during the 1980s was too much government, too much waste and too much bureaucracy. People have forgotten that, although the GLC was responsible for a mere 11 per cent. of local services in the capital, it had a budget of almost £1 billion—excluding ILEA—92 councillors and 20,000 staff. In the five years until its abolition, it increased its spending by 170 per cent., when prices generally rose by just 29 per cent.
I remember a former leader of the GLC on an elephant in Battersea park. That explains the emphasis of the GLC.
Everybody agrees that London is a major world city. But, when we look closely at London, we see not one city but a series of small towns and villages, each with its own identity. To use a dental phrase that has been thrown at me, we see an amalgam of villages. That variety is its strength as well as the cause of some of its problems.
It also makes London hard to define. For example, no Opposition Member has dared to define its boundary. Is its boundary the 33 boroughs, the area within the M25, or is it further away? London's influence is substantial. As The Economist pointed out, London dominates Britain far out of proportion to its population. In terms of public transport and commuting, London dominates the south-east. Should a strategic authority for London include key parts of the south-east?
I notice that Opposition Members have produced several proposals, which have been leaked to The Independent, the Evening Standard and so on, for various forms of authority, but they have not come to a real decision. They talk about the M25 and an ill-defined central area. They shift and churn in various directions—U-turns and S-turns. I warn Londoners of the cost to London—the direct bill on the doorstep—of delay, particularly to business. People in business in London have made it clear to me and to others that the key is that London is not as heavily regulated as other European cities.

Mr. Raynsford: Business supports a strategic authority.

Sir Paul Beresford: No, it does not.
The only other European city of a size or status anywhere near equal to London is probably Paris. We have heard much about Paris, with its mayor, as an example of how a great capital city should be run. Although Paris has one titular major, the city is in fact run by eight unitary authorities, with small parishes below them. It does not support the case for a single authority or a single mayor for London.
We touched briefly on public transport. Much is made of the GLC's so-called "Fares Fair" policy, but we should be clear that that was no panacea for road congestion. During its operation road journeys were reduced by a mere 2 per cent. In economic terms, it was not a great success for London Transport. The policy was based on the premise that the taxpayer should always foot the bill.
I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that although I would like to add more I have completely run out of time. We need to reflect on the impact of our efforts to reduce the quantity and increase the quality of government in London. London is far from the problem city that many critics would have us believe. It is the favoured location for European business men, who are encouraged by low tax and low regulation, and by the high quality and flexibility of the work force. London is rich in arts and culture, drawing visitors from the rest of Britain and the rest of the world. Overseas visitors find London clean and safe, and even the education standards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. James Clappison: I am delighted to have secured the opportunity of a debate on the middle east peace process, which besides being a matter of wide interest is of particular interest to many of my constituents.
I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office here, because he has played an especially important role in co-ordinating Britain's policy on the peace process. I pay tribute especially to the important job that he did in updating the 1975 trade agreement between Israel and the European Union.
A week ago, the House heard important news about the latest developments in the Northern Ireland peace process. From that process, we know how much the lifting of the threat of terrorism, the enjoyment of peace and the presence of hope contribute, how much those have meant since the peace process began and how they are changing the atmosphere in the Province.
In their efforts for peace, the people of Israel seek and deserve no less—the opportunity to enjoy security, to build an atmosphere of peace and to move forward in the peace process towards, I hope, a permanent solution. I seek to put at the forefront of today's debate and to draw to the attention of the House the issue of security, which is so vital for the people of Israel.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, won the 1992 Israeli election on a platform promising peace with security. He realised that the one could not be achieved without the other. We all know that since 1948 Israel has faced a constant and often painful struggle to achieve security. She has fought wars and suffered terribly at the hands of terrorists, who have shown ruthlessness and who have stopped at nothing to inflict damage on Israel, her people and the Jewish citizens of other countries. It is not surprising, therefore, that security is of paramount concern for Israel. Unless the peace process can guarantee security it cannot guarantee peace.
Many people in Israel and throughout the world hoped that the declaration of principles and the Oslo accords would bring about a peace process that encompassed and met Israel's natural and legitimate security concerns. Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat deserve the high praise and recognition that they received for their part in commencing that process.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I think that everyone agrees that Israel has every right to live free from terrorism, but does my hon. Friend not concede that the building of the settlements around Jerusalem—an entirely illegal act—is fuelling Hamas and the very forces that are trying to destroy both Mr. Arafat and the peace accord?

Mr. Clappison: I shall deal with that aspect in a minute. I recognise that there are issues between the parties, but the vital point that I want to make is that security must be an overriding consideration. As we know from our own experience in Northern Ireland, once there is security there are good prospects for establishing an atmosphere of peace and all that that means in terms of an eventual solution to the outstanding problems.
In recent months the peace process in which we invest so much hope has been overshadowed by a terrorist menace that has struck at the heart of Israel. We have seen the escalation of the terrorist activities of Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which have perpetrated serious acts of terror and exploited their own young people by sending them on suicide missions.
Last October the bus bombing in Tel Aviv was carried out by Hamas; 22 people were killed and 42 injured. In January this year at Beit Lid, in perhaps the most callous attack to date, one suicide bomber detonated himself in a crowd while another waited for rescuers to gather to aid the wounded and dying and then detonated his explosives, killing 19 more people.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we think about terrible events such as those we must look at both sides of the equation, not just one? Is it not true that since the Gaza and Jericho agreement was signed more than twice as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed?

Mr. Clappison: I shall acknowledge later in my speech the importance of stability among the Palestinian people, and especially of stability for the Palestine National Authority. But the hon. Gentleman should join me in recognising the serious terrorist threat directed against Israel while Israel and her people are playing their part and entering into negotiations in the peace process. The people of Israel are being asked, not for the first time, to make a substantial sacrifice in the cause of peace by enduring those attacks while still searching for peace. To be realistic about the prospects for peace we must recognise the strain that that puts on the Israeli people and therefore on the peace process as a whole.
The campaign of terror organised by those groups from outside Israel has not been confined to the territory of Israel. A most serious aspect of their activities consists of attacks directed against Jewish communities throughout the world. In 1992 I had the pleasure of visiting Argentina with the Inter-Parliamentary Council Against Anti-Semitism with Members from both sides of the House. We visited the Jewish communal offices in Buenos Aires, where we enjoyed warm hospitality in a happy, friendly family atmosphere.
Last year I and other Members who had been on the visit watched television pictures of the appalling atrocity that took place in those offices, where more than 100 people were murdered by a terrorist bomb. There have been similar acts of terrorism against Jewish communities in this country. It is a matter of good fortune, but no thanks to the behaviour of the bombers and extremists, that the two bombs at the Israeli embassy and at Balfour house, the headquarters of the Joint Israel Appeal, did not cause fatalities, although planting them was a ruthless, reckless and wicked act that caused several injuries.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), plainly there are issues to resolve between the various parties, but I urge the House and the Minister to agree that surely the need for security overrides those considerations. We have our experience of Northern Ireland, and our Government have rightly been conscious of the need for a cessation of terrorist violence and for the decommissioning of arms as part and parcel of getting the peace process under way. The same must apply to Israel. That country has an entirely natural and

legitimate concern that violence should end and that the peace process and the resolution of the outstanding issues should take place in an atmosphere of peace.
Prime Minister Rabin deserves great credit for continuing negotiations with the Palestinians against the background of those acts of terror both in Israel and abroad.
Israel has been placed in a terrible dilemma. Its experience has shown that the incidence of terrorism can be reduced by the closure of the territories. At the same time, part of Israel's dilemma is that closure means a deterioration in the economy of Gaza, which in turn undermines the Palestine National Authority. I must say to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that I recognise that the stability of that authority is very important.
Given the severity of the terrorist threat that I have described, it is not hard to see why Israel recently took the decision to close the Gaza strip and prevent Palestinian workers from entering Israel. Given the need for the authority to be stable, it is not hard to see why Mr. Rabin showed that he was conscious of the issue by deciding to ease the closure of the territory after meeting the PLO chairman last month.
Mr. Rabin was frank about his position, and said that he had probably acted against Israel's security interests to prevent tension among the Palestinians. The House would do well to recognise the statesmanship and courage that Mr. Rabin has shown in pursuing peace in the circumstances. I am sure that that courage extends to the people of Israel too.
Israel is also faced with a dilemma regarding the deployment of troops on the west bank, which—understandably—has been judged to be necessary for security reasons. Pressure exists for the troops to be redeployed from the west bank to allow arrangements for autonomy and elections to proceed. I hope that we can recognise that dilemma, and sympathise with the people and Government of Israel.
In extending our sympathy and support to Israel, it is right to support the position of the new Palestine National Authority and to give it stability. We must give it every encouragement, as it could be very important in dealing with terrorism and disorder. I make no bones about paying tribute to Chairman Arafat for the course on which he is proceeding in the face of considerable personal and political risks.
I welcome the fact that the British Government have played a constructive role in seeking to bring stability to the new Palestine National Authority, not least by granting it £75 million in aid.
I turn from the question of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians to wider issues of the peace process. Syria is an important element of the process and, at present, there is a great deal of uncertainty about its intentions and position. In many respects, the Syrian track of the peace process—an important one—is at an impasse. President Assad put forward a formula of, in his words,
Total peace for total withdrawal".
But that has not been sufficiently explained in tangible terms.
I suggest that Israel has shown flexibility towards Syria, and that, in my judgment, calls for a response from Syria. Israel is bound to be cautious, in view of the strategic importance to Israel of the Golan heights.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Does my hon. Friend deprecate the fact that Damascus has become a safe haven for no fewer than 10 different terrorist groups, most of which are aimed against Israel?

Mr. Clappison: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. That factor undermines Israel in many respects, and I shall turn to that in a moment. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has visited the Golan heights, as I have, and stood among the disused Syrian bunkers with their commanding views across Israeli villages and the kibbutzim below. If he has done so, he will appreciate the special strategic and security implications for Israel.
I commend to the House the flexibility that has been shown by the Prime Minister of Israel. Last year, he told the United Kibbutz Movement:
I view the Golan Heights through the security prism, first and foremost, no matter whether settlements exist there or not … if we reach the point where we need to remove settlements for the sake of peace, I have been and will remain in favour of it … For me, peace is a higher value for Israel's future and security than this or that group of settlements.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we should commend that approach. Mr. Rabin, while putting security as the foremost consideration, is showing flexibility, and I hope that that flexibility will result in a response from the Government of Syria.
I also hope that Syria shows flexibility in respect of the important issue of the future of south Lebanon. Israel's position must be equally flexible, and governed by quite natural considerations of security, given the vulnerability of its northern borders. Everyone hopes that the Syrian Government will respond to that clear flexibility.
Confidence must be built, a starting point for which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth). The Syrian Government must show that they are serious about curbing terrorism in the middle east, and rebut any suggestion that Syria is in any way a safe haven for terrorist groups. One could not escape noticing the fact that the leader of Islamic Jihad, Fathi Shkaki, claimed responsibility for the Beit Lid outrage from Damascus. I join my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in support of the contention that Syria must rebut any suggestions that it is involved in terrorism, and I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to exercise all the Government's influence with the Syrians to move the peace process forward.
Jordan is a happier story, as it has played a full part in the peace process. I am sure that all Members would want to recognise the leadership of King Hussein over the Jordanian people. King Hussein waited for the Palestinians to begin their part of the peace process and to arrive at an agreement before concluding a peace treaty with Israel, which has removed the remaining differences between Jordan and Israel. Since then, a number of border crossings have been opened and the free passage of people and goods has commenced.
The King and the Government of Jordan deserve our support. They have shown clearly by their actions that they are interested in a warm peace, not a cold peace, and in many ways that sets a good precedent. They have stood firm in the face of discouragement from Syria at various

points during their involvement in the peace process. King Hussein has been at pains to deny the charge that Jordan's treaty with Israel weakens Syria's negotiations. He said:
On the contrary it might have created a precedent in the right direction".
I am sure that many Members on both sides of the House agree with the King, and I hope that his actions set a helpful precedent which others could follow.
There are many difficult hurdles which the peace process must overcome. One of the most difficult of those is the issue of the future of Jerusalem. Jerusalem has special significance for three great faiths, and I feel it proper to recognise the way in which the holy sites have been maintained and made accessible to all since 1967, for the first time in 2,000 years. That is important to people of many faiths.
Jerusalem presents a difficult problem. There was wisdom in the Oslo agreement, which sought to postpone discussions on Jerusalem until negotiations on the final settlement were complete and progress on other fronts had been made. I do not want to criticise the Palestinians—I want to support them in their endeavours—but they might be wise to reflect on the wisdom of the agreement and to act within the spirit of it. One way in which they could do so is to think carefully about the use that could be made of Orient house in east Jerusalem, which has been suggested as a site for some form of diplomatic headquarters. The Palestinians must think carefully about that. Perhaps they should think again and concentrate on promoting other areas in which progress can be made.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly stated, the parties to the negotiations have to work out and agree the timing and the pace. Surely they would be well advised to consider the effect of the timing and pace of their actions on the future of Orient house.
Finally, on relations between Israel and this country, my right hon. Friend will shortly make his first visit to Israel as Prime Minister. It will be the second visit to Israel by a British Prime Minister in office—Lady Thatcher made the first in 1986. I warmly welcome the visit, which will cement the excellent bilateral relationship between this country and Israel. I also warmly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend will be accompanied by a group of prominent business men, which I hope will help to develop the growing trade between the two countries, as Israel is our third most important trading partner in the middle east. I hope that more good will come of my right hon. Friend's visit.
The visit also has significance beyond trade, important though that is. The peace process in the middle east means a great deal to the region and to many people throughout the world. We have a good record of contributing to that process and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deserves our strong support across the House for the further efforts that he will undoubtedly make to move forward that process, in which we have all invested so much hope.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on winning this Adjournment debate. At this time in the middle east peace process, it is important for the House to have an opportunity to discuss the issues and for Opposition Members to have the chance to support the efforts that


the Government and the international community are making to ensure lasting peace in the middle east. It is also important for hon. Members on both sides of the House to set out some of our concerns.
We do not have much time and I do not want to take up any more than necessary, but it is important to say one or two things, given that the thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Hertsmere concerned the security of Israel. I have been in this House for 16 years and have heard many people talking about the security of Israel from different perspectives. The argument has moved on, but it has not really changed. The hon. Gentleman fell into the trap of thinking that dealing with security in its military sense is the only way to guarantee Israel's security, without realising that the best security and harbinger of peace in the middle east would be a comprehensive peace settlement. That is the only security and future that Israel could and should be striving for, and that must be what all hon. Members dedicate themselves to.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere is right in saying that we must concentrate our efforts on a comprehensive peace settlement for the middle east and the various aspects of it. I agree with him that one of the most crucial aspects of that peace plan is for the Israeli-Syrian peace accord to be moved forward. I agree that the Syrians have made it clear that it must be full peace for full withdrawal and the Israelis have said that the depth of peace will be commensurate with the depth of withdrawal, but we need to go beyond that.
We have had many hints from the various capitals of the world that the two countries are close to concluding that agreement. We need to press harder to encourage them to take that extra step for peace. Then we must move on to the peace accord between Lebanon and Israel and to a further comprehensive peace that will remove all the inhibitions and problems that Israel faces. Israel cannot complain at the moment that it has somehow lost out because of anything that has happened so far as part of the declaration of principles, the Oslo agreement, or any other agreement for that matter.
I also pay tribute to the Israeli Government. They are the first Israeli Government to be elected on a platform for peace during the 16 years that I have been in this place and that should be recognised in the House. They were not only elected on a platform for peace, but have had the determination to make it happen. I have sat here through two previous Israeli Governments—the Likud Governments of Begin and Shamir. The latter went to Madrid and signed the original peace accord. As we now know, he did so with no intention of moving any way towards giving the Palestinians any rights, responsibilities or freedom and certainly with no intention of giving them a Palestinian authority, let alone a Palestinian state. This Israeli Government command respect and support because they fought on a platform for peace, and what is more important, a platform that set out land for peace, as outlined in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
There is a different environment in Israel and I hope that the Israeli Government will be re-elected in the forthcoming elections. It is vital for the Israeli people and the middle east peace process that that Government, who are committed to peace, should be re-elected.
The Israeli-Palestinian problem is the crux of the middle east problem. I have difficulty agreeing with much of what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said on that

matter. It is clear to anyone who has worked in the middle east, understands it and realises the problems that the lack of comparability and equality between the two parties, who are supposed to be negotiating equally across the table, is the problem. There must be an equality of legitimacy between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that cannot happen unless the Palestinian authority can sit at that table as a directly elected authority. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends agree and will support me, as will Conservative Members, when I say that an early election on the west bank and Gaza is one of the vital cogs in the process. The forum, size and nature of the authority is for the Palestinians to determine and to agree with the Israelis and we must try to help. Whether it is a 100-person council, 65 persons as proposed by Egypt, 40 or 20, as proposed by Israel, is not as important as the fact that those elections take place. Unless and until they do, there cannot be the legitimacy of equality over the negotiating table, which is so vital if we are to move the peace forward.
As the hon. Member for Hertsmere secured this debate, I am sorry that we were not able to invite him to listen to the talk by Emma Murphy, the British academy postdoctoral fellow, at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies last week. She gave an excellent paper which, for the first time, brought together all the concerns and fears and began to look at the declaration of principles, the Oslo accord and the way in which they have impacted on the two countries. What Israel has done to exploit—I use that word as it is supposed to be used—the Oslo accord and the declaration of principles is no less than any other Government would have done in negotiations with another party. Later today, we will discuss the various ways in which Britain might secure the best place for Britain in Europe.
I was not surprised when Emma Murphy set out in such detail in her paper the way in which the accord could not work because from the outset it was structured to favour the Israelis to the extent that there was an imbalance that would not allow it to be a success. She identified two international failures:
Firstly, the international community has failed to insist that economic and political development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip should go hand in hand and secondly, Israel has been speedily rewarded both politically but more importantly economically, for its participation in the process, without regard for its own failures to fulfil either the spirit or the letter of the DOP"—
the declaration of principles. If any Member wants to challenge me, he need not merely take my word for that.
Let us hear from Danny Doron, president of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel, who said:
The firms are moving here on the belief that the peace process is a done deal.
Previously they were reluctant to deal with Israel for fear of damaging their business with the Arab world.
Let us list what has happened to Israel since then. By August 1994, it had announced that 20 countries had
established diplomatic relations since the Israeli accord. Prime Minister Rabin has been to China, Indonesia and Singapore to open up those markets, which were previously closed to Israel. Even Vietnam has had discussions with Israel. Even the Japanese Security Dealers Association authorised its members to conduct trading through the Israeli stock exchange for the first time, and the Japanese Trade and Industry Minister offered training to Israeli managers and workers in Japanese firms.
So it is difficult for anyone to come to the Chamber and argue that Israel has lost out. What should concern us is how the Oslo accord has worked against the best chances of a real peace agreement in line with the declaration of principles. As a result of that dialogue, the Palestine National Authority has been given direct responsibility for education, culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism. But it must co-operate with Israel in the more strategic areas of water, electricity, energy, financial development, transport, communications, trade and industry, environment, labour, media and the hunt for international aid and finance. Most notably, Israel divests itself of the expensive function of government but has retained its influence over matters directly related to the economic development of the authority which it handed over to the Palestinians.
So, from the outset, the Palestinians' hands have been tied because they were given the most costly matters to look after while economic matters must be agreed with Israel. Moreover, as a result of the Oslo accord and the newly developing peace, Arab money is pouring into the west bank and Gaza and, for the first time ever, that money is now accessible to Israel. Who would have thought that Israel would have had access to Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and diaspora Palestinian finances? As it now has that access to the occupied territories' markets, it is not much of a loser.
None the less, the world community, including this country, finds fault with the Palestine National Authority and asks why it has not done this or achieved that, without realising, understanding or accepting the imbalance in its relationship with Israel. It is perhaps ironic that it took 26 years thoroughly to reduce the occupied territories' economy, yet the international community expected a massive turnround in the space of months. When Israel's disengagement fell behind schedule and elections failed to materialise, Israeli closures strangled the lifeline of the Palestinian income, aid only dripped into the west bank, Gaza and the occupied territories and living standards fell, the result—not surprisingly—was a loss in public faith in the opportunities presented by the deal and a rise in political tensions.
It is crucial that those issues are understood. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Hertsmere and with the agreement of Emma Murphy, I shall place her extremely enlightening document in the Library so that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues can read it.
The benefits for Israel are great. The Troika visited Israel recently for discussions with Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Peres. Apart from correctly raising issues which it regarded as blocks to the success of the middle east peace process—the settlements and the failure of the international community to help Palestinians in Gaza—it also discussed special, favoured terms for Israel. The European Mediterranean Association agreement, which I understand is 95 per cent. agreed—we are arguing over the last 5 per cent.—will give Israel, the only non-European Union member, privileged access to research and development and bidding for projects in European countries. It has gained that privileged access because of its commitment to resolving peacefully the problems in the middle east.
At the same time, Israel is telling the European Union, which is the largest single contributor to the peace process—it is giving 500 million ecu—that it must keep its nose out of the political side of those negotiations. That is no longer possible. Without seeking to attack Israel, we must remind it, as the United States Government did when they temporarily suspended $10 billion of aid some years ago because Israel was not working as hard as they thought it should, that if it wants that association agreement to be concluded, we expect certain measures from it. If it intends to be a partner to the European Union, it is not too much to ask that it listens to what we have to say.
One of the most important measures is Palestinian elections. It is essential that the Palestinians can sit down at the negotiations as an elected authority to negotiate with their elected counterparts in Israel. It is also important that we understand the conditions under which those elections can and will take place. The International Human Rights Law Group, in its book, "Guidelines for International Election Observing", defines the following minimal conditions for free and fair elections:
no unreasonable limitations placed on a citizen's ability to participate in the political process, including the right to a secret vote and the right to be elected to office; and respect for the rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly for a period adequate to allow political organizing and campaigning and to inform citizens about the candidates and issues.
There must be a full withdrawal of Israeli military presence if those elections are to take place. I firmly believe that, if an elected Palestinian authority can negotiate with its Israeli counterparts, a comprehensive peace plan will be well on the way to being established. That is the best and only security that Israel can possibly want.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: It is some 13 years since I last had an opportunity to participate in a debate on the middle east and Israel. During that time, while other responsibilities enforced my absence from such debates, a great deal happened—most recently, an advance in the peace process. I therefore warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on initiating this debate and welcome the opportunity to make a new contribution to it.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) emphasised several times that, in his view, the best way to obtain security for Israel was a "comprehensive peace". In a speech 13 years ago, I made the obvious and, I hope, now generally agreed point that the best way to advance the peace process was to promote direct negotiations between Israel and her neighbours. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that, given everything that has happened since then, that is not just the best way but the only way to achieve substantial progress in the peace process. Intermediaries have an important role, but it should be restricted to bringing about direct negotiations, which have achieved results in respect of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
A powerful message must be given to Syria. If it refuses to participate in direct talks with Israel, it is effectively saying that it has no interest, in advancing the peace process and bringing about détente. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, a second message


that we should give Syria is about terrorism. Eliminating terrorism is the best confidence-building measure that one can have. Syria must not only say that it opposes terrorism but show that it will do something about it, instead of accepting the presence in its capital of many terrorist organisations, which seem to be able to operate with no interference and perhaps even with encouragement from the Government.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. Friend made an interesting argument about the need for negotiations between the two partners to the accord; but is that the whole picture? Surely the United Nations has some part to play. What about United Nations resolutions 242 and 338? At a time when Israel is obviously breaking international law in the occupied territories, surely the wider community and the world has a part to play.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: As I said, intermediaries do have a role, and I recognise that the United Nations can be an intermediary. Nevertheless, the history of efforts to obtain peace and improve security in the region shows that the only effective way to make real and lasting progress is for the parties to sit down face to face and negotiate—although that may be the result of a process and work by intermediaries. It is common sense that one will be unable to build confidence with a neighbour unless that neighbour is prepared to come and talk directly, instead of, so to speak, corresponding through solicitors. I reiterate that.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): indicated assent.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recognises the disadvantages of using lawyers on those occasions.

Mr. John Marshall: And on many other occasions.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: And also on many other occasions.
Obviously, it is also important that we do everything possible to retain and build on confidence in the peace process throughout the region. I support, in part at least, what the hon. Member for Dundee, West said about that.
The first effective way to do that is to improve the safety and security of all parties in the region, not only by negotiations between countries, but by eliminating terrorism, which is very destabilising to the process, and not only life-threatening but worse.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I am another lawyer.
My right hon. Friend has mentioned terrorism. Does he agree that one needs to widen the net, and that, as it is now public knowledge that the Hamas illegal money is probably laundered through London, and as President Clinton has frozen similar assets in the United States since 24 January 1995, Britain should do the same?

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend, who is a staunch supporter of Israel and who I know takes a close interest in these affairs, makes a valid argument. I entirely agree that attacking money laundering, whether it be in connection with drugs, terrorism or any other aspect of criminal behaviour, is an important way of fighting crime.
The second way to enhance confidence in the peace process, which has already been mentioned, is very important—it is to promote economic co-operation and trade. That will enable the people of the region—the people of Gaza and of Jericho as well as the people of Israel, Jordan and all the surrounding areas—to witness direct economic benefits in their lives, such as more jobs and greater prosperity.
There is enormous scope for advances to be made by co-operation between Israel and her neighbours. That co-operation can bring benefits, whether it be on transport infrastructure, tourism or water resources. Everyone recognises that there is an enormous number of ways of advancing co-operation.
I hope, and I am sure, that the United Kingdom Government will do all that they can to promote that co-operation and to bring about those benefits. The forthcoming visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Israel will provide an opportunity to do that, especially as he will be accompanied, not only by right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who will respond to the debate, but by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade, who I hope will build on the target set by one of his predecessors—me—to double trade flows between Israel and the United Kingdom. I am happy to say that we have made good progress towards that object.

Mr. Gerrard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I do not want to give way too often, because I know that several hon. Members wish to speak, but I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Gerrard: In considering the economic developments that I am sure that we all want, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if, during the visit by the Minister for Export Trade, the Minister will argue that the policies of economic separation between the Palestinians and Israel that appear to be being pursued and actively encouraged by the Government of Israel are of no help in that process?

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: With the time limitations, I should not like to go too far down that route. Obviously there are ways of developing co-operation, which, for instance, might take the form of development of industrial estates on the borders between Gaza and Israel, which would provide job opportunities and opportunities for the use of Israeli capital and skills to provide work for inhabitants of Gaza.
Something else that would be essential to taking best advantage of opportunities for economic co-operation is the dismantling of the remaining and distasteful aspects of the boycott. Undoubtedly, we now have the best opportunity that we have ever had to give the people of Israel, and indeed her neighbours, peace and economic advance. I am sure that we in the United Kingdom—including my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in his negotiations and all his contacts—will take every opportunity to advance that process and to build on what has been achieved.

Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate.
The last time that I was in the middle east was about 18 months ago. That was at a time when the Madrid and Washington talks were generally felt to be on the rocks, at least by people living in the middle east. There was pessimism at that time among the people of the west bank and the Gaza strip about what the future held for them. Few people at that time knew—certainly I did not—of the talks that were going on in Oslo. Yet as soon as a couple of months later we witnessed that historic moment on the White house lawn when the peace accords were signed between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin.
Much has been achieved. Much was achieved in that moment. The declaration of principles achieves a great deal. However, since that day in September 1993, there have been some reminders of the great importance of the peace process. Some of those reminders, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere reminded us, were the attacks of Islamic fundamentalists. There was also a reminder, in February 1994, when Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 people at the Ibrahim mosque in Hebron. That was a salutary reminder of the importance of the peace process.
We all support the peace process, but one thing must be understood; it cannot stand still. It is a fragile process, and unless it constantly moves forward it is likely to fall apart. As time is short, I shall concentrate on two aspects that are vital in ensuring that the peace process moves forward and does not fall apart.
The first aspect has already been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)—the necessity for early elections to the Palestine National Authority. One of the top Palestinian negotiators on elections, Dr. Saeb Erekat, has said that the issue of elections is the make-or-break issue for the peace process. Elections will be the cement that binds that process together, which allows the Palestinians to act as full partners with Israel in making progress in the peace process.
A great deal of emphasis has rightly been placed on the need for economic revival in that part of the world, yet, if that is to happen, elections are a vital component. The fact that elections have not so far been held is one reason for delay in the provision of some of the aid that was promised by World bank donors as long ago as 1993.
We need to consider the ways in which barriers to those elections may be removed. An early redeployment of Israeli troops away from the population areas must be a central part of that process. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State made that argument in the House on 1 February 1995, and it was made again much more recently by the European Parliament.
Political legitimacy requires democracy. For democracy to thrive, the participants in it must be confident. It is very difficult for the people of the west bank and Gaza to have that confidence if they feel that their elections are being supervised by what they still regard as an occupying power.
I refer briefly, and secondly, to the settlements, which are central to the success or otherwise of the peace process. I welcome the fact that the Minister recently acknowledged in the House that the settlements in the west bank and Gaza are unlawful—under international law and under article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. There was a time when the former Government of Israel

seemed to think that it was open season for building settlements. I am pleased that the present Government do not see them in those terms and have declared a settlement freeze. If that settlement freeze is to be meaningful it has to be consistent, and seen to be so by the Palestinians living in the west bank and the Gaza strip.
I accept what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said about the issue of Jerusalem being left to future negotiations, but they must include all aspects of Jerusalem. The future status of Jerusalem should not be pre-empted by continued settlement building on the borders of east Jerusalem—which is what is happening. On 23 January this year The Guardian described the Israeli Housing Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as having
backed further expansion of the arc of burgeoning dormitory suburbs around mostly Arab East Jerusalem. He told Israel radio: 'I will continue to do my best to convince my colleagues in the government that the only thing we have to do is to continue to reinforce the defences of the capital of Israel."'
Faced with that, it is hardly surprising that Palestinians will see the so-called freeze on settlement building as not all that it is cracked up to be.
When I was in the middle east about 18 months ago, what was going on around the outskirts of east Jerusalem was obvious: an arc of settlements being built around Arab east Jerusalem. Those settlements are not only a barrier to peace, but they have an impact on the Arab quarter that is psychologically dangerous. That too serves to underline the inequity in the negotiations.
The settlements are a major obstacle to Palestinian confidence in the peace process. Should hon. Members wonder why that is so, let us remember, for instance, what was said by the Israeli military commander responsible for the west bank area when he testified before the Shamgar commission, set up to investigate the Hebron massacre:
You have to understand the basic situation. A Jew has a weapon to defend himself. An Arab who is carrying a weapon is a terrorist. A Jew with a weapon is defending himself and he is allowed to shoot. We forbid soldiers in the IDF to open fire at them.
We need to get away from this sort of attitude and to state clearly that peace is indivisible: it must be respected on both sides. As we rightly condemn attacks made by Islamic fundamentalists and others on Israelis, so too we expect the Israeli Government and Israelis in general to respect the basic rights of the Palestinians. They have to recognise the role that the settlements play. They must also recognise the force of what Hanan Ashrawi said some time ago. It spoke volumes about the settlements which, she said,
cause friction, are a blatant injustice to Palestinians, fragment Palestinian land and prevent the emergence of a geographically contiguous Palestinian entity. Leaving the settlements untouched is like putting a flame next to a powder keg and saying: co-exist.
There are many difficult issues to be faced. The Oslo accords and the peace agreement signed on the White house lawn were but the start, not the end, of a difficult process. We have the chance now of a real and lasting peace in the middle east; but if it is to be meaningful, it must be based on equality. To be equal, it has to be legitimate and democratic. Two necessary prerequisites for that would seem to be early Palestinian elections preceded by an early redeployment of Israeli troops away from populated areas. There must also be a proper freeze on settlement building, to include the outskirts of Jerusalem as well as other parts of the west bank and Gaza.

Sir David Madel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on initiating the debate, which comes at a timely moment.
The middle east peace process always seems to proceed in fits and starts. Temporarily we appear to be in the doldrums again, but middle east instability remains, as it always has been, an immense danger to the west. Apart from our long historical connection with the area, it surely remains in the British national interest that we should play a positive role in the middle east.
As this is a short debate I want to make just three brief points. First, I applaud the fact that Mr. Rabin's Government in Israel have taken risks for peace and have some considerable diplomatic triumphs to their credit—especially the agreement with Jordan. Like my hon. Friend, I give credit to the part played in that by King Hussein and his Government. Inevitably, the problem of the settlements in the west bank and Jerusalem is making further progress in the talks between the PLO and Israel extremely difficult.
When Mr. Rabin's Government came to power in 1992 they said that they would freeze settlements. Settlements policy is bound to be hotly contested when Israel holds general elections next year, but of course it will not be the only issue that the Israeli electorate will have to consider. It would surely help the peace process along if the Israeli Government announced an immediate and stronger freeze on the settlements, not least because that would deny the extremists who want to wreck the peace process easy propaganda to use against the Government of Israel, who are striving on all fronts to achieve a peace agreement.
The peace process is certainly dangerously incomplete without the positive involvement of Syria. It is important to remember that the dispute between Israel and Syria did not start in 1967. There was constant trouble and warfare on the armistice lines between 1949 and 1967, and everyone who takes an interest in the subject must realise the extreme Israeli sensitivity about future security on the Golan heights.
This year, 1995, is surely the year in which progress on this dispute can be made. First, there is Syria's need for more economic aid, now that the Soviet Union no longer exists to back it up. Israel does not have elections this year and so has time to prepare a package to put before the electorate in 1996. President Clinton does not have elections this year either; without big American involvement, I do not believe an agreement to be possible.
There will surely have to be a step-by-step approach to the problem. Initial territorial compromise will be needed before a complete solution is achieved. I do not believe that a non-aggression pact between Israel and Syria will be adequate, but America will need to give as strong a guarantee for the security and stability of the Golan heights as she gave to west Berlin at the time of the cold war.
It is impossible to overemphasise the fact that a poor middle east is a dangerous middle east. Enormous improvements in living standards could be made if only these countries would reduce the amount that they spend on arms. Wild talk of an Islamic nuclear bomb and the dangerous unpredictability of Iran, to say nothing of the situation in Algeria, make it all the more important that

we make progress in 1995; and that peaceful co-existence, with all the advantages that it would bring to Israel and her neighbours, becomes a reality, not a dream.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate and making an excellent speech. I thought that some of my hon. Friends' observations assumed an influence for this country that we simply do not have—and have not had for a long time. The Foreign Office does not enjoy the influence in the middle east that it thinks it should have. It has forfeited that and has not made a particularly good job of affairs in the middle east. I am even handed about that. That has been the position since Ernest Bevin. I absolve the Minister of State. He enjoys a good reputation in the House and a growing international reputation on the issue. I do not blame him for the lack of influence that the Foreign Office appears to have in the middle east.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere mentioned a number of points which should be pursued. He mentioned Europe, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). It is true that Israel was among the first non-European states to recognise the importance of the Common Market and it signed an economic accord with the trading bloc in 1975. Today, after all that time, Israel's trade deficit with the European Union amounts to about £7 billion per annum. The British Government should do something about recognising that. They have failed actively to encourage our European partners to support Israel's trade agreement and they should do more in that regard.
The key issue involving Israel today is the peace process and what is going on in the nations that surround Israel. The biggest worry of all is Syria and the Syrians' failure to take a much more positive attitude to the peace process. Syria's main interest focuses on the return of the Golan heights to Syria and no one can underestimate their strategic and military importance. But Mr. Rabin's Labour Government have made it clear that they are prepared to withdraw on the Golan heights for a full and comprehensive peace with Syria.
Unfortunately, our Government are not positive enough in pursuing that. We should take a far stronger line with Syria on the question of Hizbollah and other terrorist groupings, to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred, and the fact that they find a safe haven in Syria from which to conduct attacks on the state of Israel. The British Government should be much clearer in what they are saying to the Syrian Government about that and be much more demanding that they desist in order that the peace process may be progressed.
Likewise, the British Government, despite our long friendship with King Hussein and the people of Jordan, are not positive enough about Jordan. Jordan has acted with great courage in the peace process. King Hussein and his Government are to be warmly congratulated on what they have done. But, again, there is a trade deficit between Jordan and the United Kingdom and, despite promises, the United Kingdom has agreed to write off only approximately 10 per cent. of Jordan's debt. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere also referred to the £75 million available to the Palestine National Authority. He made a good point about that, but so far only


£10 million has reached the Palestinians. That is not a good record. I accept that circumstances have not been as conducive to the delivery of aid as we had hoped, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that in order to assure us that the money that has been earmarked for the Palestine National Authority will reach it as a matter of urgency.
On Europe we have not done enough; on Syria we have not done enough: on Jordan we have not done enough: on the Palestinian question we have not done enough. Those questions must be addressed by the Government. When they are addressed, then and only then will the Government be able to say that they are making a positive contribution to the peace process.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on his success in securing the debate. I do so with some feeling because he and I applied for a one-and-a-half-hour debate on peace in the middle east: he was successful and I was not.
Peace in the middle east will come only when there is mutual trust. That mutual trust would be helped if the people of Israel could be told of the fate of the Israeli hostages, if those who are alive could be returned to their families in Israel and if the remains of those whose death has been confirmed could be sent back to their families.
We must remember that John McCarthy and Terry Waite live in freedom because Israel kickstarted the release of hostages in the middle east by releasing a large number of prisoners. That decision meant that the west owed Israel a debt of honour. Israel had a right to expect that she would receive something in return. In fact, all she received in return were the bones of a dead Druze soldier.
The parents of Zachary Baumel still do not know his fate 12 years after he was captured; Joseph Fink's parents have been told that he is dead, but they have still not been able to give him a burial; but much worse is the case of Ron Arad. On 31 December, when the people of England were celebrating new year, Ron Arad was celebrating his 3,000th night in captivity.
Ron Arad was shot down on 16 October 1986. It is known that he was captured by the Amal and it admitted that it was holding him. In the first year of his captivity, he was allowed to write three letters to his wife, Tami, who also received two photographs from him, but since 1987 there has been a ghastly silence from that poor man. His relatives have not received a message and he has not been allowed to receive any messages from them.
In 1988, he was removed from the care of Amal and transferred to the care of the Resistance of Believers. In 1989, he was transferred to that benevolent organisation, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Until recently, we have had only rumour to go by, but this weekend an Iranian appeared on Israeli television to say that he had seen Ron Arad alive in 1994. Mr. Manucher Matumer—I apologise to the gentleman if I have mispronounced his name—appearing on Israel television on 25 February this year, said: "I have a message both for the wife and the mother of Ron Arad. The message is: your husband is alive; your son is alive."
It is surely a scandal that, some eight and a half years after that man was captured in Lebanon, he is being kept in solitary confinement, against all the rules of the Geneva convention, and that his mother, his wife and his young daughter have not heard from him. Surely if we are to have peace in the middle east, Ron Arad should be allowed to return to his family rather than being kept in solitary confinement in Iran. His continued incarceration is an act of sheer barbarism.
There is always a risk that a new peace process will create a crisis of rising expectations. We know that Camp David did not yield the immediate dividend that everyone expected. There was not the anticipated increase in tourism and trade from Egypt to Israel. One of the tragedies of the middle east is that the bus that used to go from Tel Aviv to Cairo was full of Israelis, but the bus from Cairo to Tel Aviv was only infrequently full of Egyptians.
I believe that the peace between Jordan and Israel will be a very warm peace. I pay tribute to the courage of King Hussein, who must always have been reminded of the fate of his grandfather. Anyone who has stood on Allenby bridge knows that people and goods have moved between Israel and Jordan for a very long time. One of the risks involved in the peace must be that the people of Jordan may feel that their economy is not expanding quickly enough. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he visits the middle east later this month, will be able to give them economic hope.
When the people of Israel signed the Oslo agreement, they hoped that they were getting security. We have seen in Argentina, London and Israel how Hamas is determined to try to defeat peace in the middle east. The people of Israel deserve our understanding when they have to act to try to ensure security and peace for their own people, because if they do not succeed in doing that peace in the middle east will be very much at risk.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate and on choosing this topic. I particularly commend his use of the phrase "warm peace", which, perhaps, has guided the whole tone of the debate. That is to be welcomed.
I say respectfully to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that these debates are an opportunity for us to go further than simply rehearse and exchange old grievances, no matter how deep and legitimate the hurt that lies behind them.
I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel), who expressed concern that the middle east peace process should not stall, but let us begin by recognising the unique place in the history of democratic government that the present Government of Israel will have. The endeavour on which they have set out is one of the boldest, bravest and most testing endeavours that any democratic Government in the history of democratic Governments have ever attempted. It is a matter of pride for me that the party that lies at the core of that Government bears the name of my own party and shares many of our hopes and traditions, and that we can say truthfully, sincerely and with great respect that they are our brothers and sisters. All my hon. Friends who have spoken have done so in that sense and with respect for the great endeavour that is being undertaken.
I recognise some of the points that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West made about settlements, but the present Government of Israel face not one set of extremists but two, and the courage of the measures that the Israeli Government have already taken on settlements gives some hope for the future.
Time is short and I want to allow the Minister adequate time to reply. At the heart of the matter is a rapid construction of the strength, legitimacy and success of the Palestine National Authority. Without that, the peace process will stall. The strength and legitimacy of the Palestine National Authority will depend, as my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) pointed out, on its ability to legitimise its own place in the life of the Palestinian people through election processes.
But it does not end there. This is a battle for hearts and minds that will be won as much on kitchen tables as ballot boxes. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made a telling intervention on precisely that point. When the Prime Minister visits Israel and Gaza—he will take all our hearts with him when he does so—I hope that this will lie at the core of his visit. Something must be done quickly to improve the water, sewerage, electricity, homes and jobs of the people for whom the Palestine National Authority currently bears responsibility. I hope that that is the framework in which we can start to discuss the matter and move it forward. Skilful diplomacy and tough and plain speaking are certainly important, but let us not forget the part that chicken and vegetables will play in resolving the matter.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that the Prime Minister will not go to Israel and Gaza with empty hands, and that we have, ready to be delivered quickly, while it is still important and while it can win the hearts of people, positive proposals to put young men back to work, to give them a place in their own community and to give them some sense of their own power and place in society, because that is as important in Gaza as it is in many other parts of the world.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): May I begin, like all other hon. Members, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on having secured this debate? It has been an extremely good debate and it has reinforced the wisdom of the House in creating opportunities on a Wednesday morning for such debates. The number of participants demonstrates the importance that hon. Members attach to promoting the peace possess within the middle east.
The starting point for every speech has been a very strong welcome for the peace process. Hon. Members have recognised the very considerable courage that has been shown by Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat. It is right that we should all recognise—as did the hon. Members for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—the contribution that His Majesty the King of Jordan has made.
I agree that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) said, the momentum of the peace process must be maintained. It cannot stand still, because if it does it will fall.
The agenda for the debate was set by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. I agree with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, who apologised to the House for not being able to stay for the closing speech, about the comprehensive framework that my hon. Friend set for our discussion. My hon. Friend touched on all the major issues. Therefore, in the course of my response, I will base what I have to say on the framework that he established.
My hon. Friend concentrated substantially on security. He is entirely right when he says that security has overshadowed the middle east peace process, most notably in recent months. Israel clearly has a right to look to Chairman Arafat and other neighbours to combat terrorism, but another proposition needs to be advanced. Terrorism in the middle east and the threat to the security of Israel cannot be checked or contained exclusively by military or police action. That is true whether it be military action by the Israelis, the Palestinians or anyone else.
Advances in political rights and increasing prosperity are an essential element in promoting the security of Israel. That point was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West, and I wholly agree with him. It follows, therefore, that Israel should not make unattainable requirements of, for example, the Palestine National Authority, as a condition of further negotiations within the peace process.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As it is clear that security is at the base of so many of the difficulties in relation to the peace process, why have the British Government changed their attitude towards Syria? What is offered in exchange for the considerable support that they have given Syria in their change of attitude?

Mr. Hogg: I shall deal with Syria shortly, but first I must emphasise that security is best promoted by the development and eventual achievement of a comprehensive peace process.
There has been a good deal of discussion about the importance of Syria in that peace process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury)—I was glad to hear him break a 13-year silence—focused on that subject. I wholly agreed with his view that face-to-face negotiations between Syria and Israel are essential if there is to be agreement between the parties; solicitors are not an adequate channel, even if they are as good as Secretary Christopher. That, I think, is the point that my right hon. Friend was making.
I hope that face-to-face talks will take place. Indeed, discussions of that kind have already taken place in Washington, at ambassadorial level. Such talks, however, will not lead to an agreement unless it is based on the two propositions that have been advanced: total withdrawal from the Golan on Israel's part, and a full, comprehensive and—I would say—warm peace with Israel on Syria's part. Those are the two essential elements.
Hon. Members have pointed out that Prime Minister Rabin has committed Israel to full withdrawal, and—although at times the language has been a little equivocal—I think that he has. To the extent that he has, his commitment is welcome. I hope that Syria will now feel able to spell out in detail what is meant by "total peace": that, along with agreement with Syria, is essential to Israel's achievement of a comprehensive and sustainable agreement in the middle east involving all her neighbours.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned terrorism. All of us should do all that we can to persuade Syria that any endorsement of terrorism, either in southern Lebanon or in Israel itself, is wholly wrong and destructive of the peace process, and should be stopped. The British Government take every possible opportunity to make that plain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere mentioned Jerusalem. He is entirely right to say that a way must be found to enable the various parties to the negotiations to reconcile their legitimate interests in Jerusalem, but that will be extraordinarily difficult. It will require generosity from all parties. I am convinced that that issue should be left until last.
I also agree with what I took to be the general message from the House about the importance of not taking steps designed to shape or pre-empt the ultimate agreement. Specific reference has been made to settlements: it was made very strongly by the hon. Member for Northfield but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West. In so far as we can stop the process, we must not allow settlements to be so constructed as to pre-empt that ultimate agreement. Indeed, I say categorically that the construction of settlements is an obstacle to peace, and I very much hope that the Israeli Government will desist from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere rightly pointed out that bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and Israel have never been better. Perhaps unconsciously, he was echoing a point made by Prime Minister Rabin when he visited the United Kingdom last year, and his view is strongly shared by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere welcomes my right hon. Friend's visit to Israel in two weeks' time, on which he will be accompanied by a substantial number of UK business men. Much of the preliminary work was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove, who has contributed substantially to the promotion of Anglo-Israeli relations, which are very important.
The fact that so many business men are going to Israel with my right hon. Friend demonstrates the extent to which the boycott has fallen away. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West that a poor middle east is a dangerous middle east: that is a true statement, which influences our thinking.

Mr. Cousins: We welcome the fact that business men are to go to Israel, but if business is to be done money must be invested. It is essential to use that money to return people to work.

Mr. Hogg: Money is certainly important. In fact, the European Union is the largest contributor to the Palestinian cause in financial terms. As the hon. Gentleman will know, 500 mecu is promised over five years. But he is wrong: 100 mecu has been disbursed up to the end of February, and the British Government's contribution is £75 million over three years. We shall try to find other ways of enforcing our commitment, but the hon. Gentleman must allow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to deal his cards as he thinks best.
The question of elections was raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Dundee, West and for Northfield. I agree that elections are terribly important: they underpin and reinforce the legitimacy of the Palestine National Authority. I also agree that it is extremely important for the Israelis to feel able to redeploy troops away from residential areas. Let me say to the Palestinians, however, that the Israelis have legitimate security interests. I hope that the Palestinians will themselves feel able to exercise flexibility in their calls for redeployment, taking account of the security requirements that Israel certainly has.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South raised the question of hostages, most notably the case of Ron Arad. I associate myself with what he said. As Ron Arad is still alive—we believe that he is, but we have no certain knowledge—the fact that he has been detained for so long is, as my hon. Friend said, a crying scandal. We say to any Government with influence—the Iranians, for instance, may have some influence—that it is indeed a crying scandal, and that Ron Arad should be released.
I also say to the Israelis in this context—although I am not establishing any kind of linkage—that we welcome what has been done recently with regard to Khiam prison. I recall that the hon. Member for Dundee, West raised the matter when we last discussed this issue. Two important steps have been taken. I welcome the Israeli Government's decision to allow families access to the prison; I also welcome the decision to release some 32 prisoners. As I have said, no link is involved, but I welcome what Israel has done and feel that her action should be applauded. Nevertheless, I again emphasise the importance of securing the release of Ron Arad, whose detention has been a scandal.
A number of important points have been made, but I am afraid that I have not been able to deal with all of them in 14 minutes. I mean no discourtesy to the House. This has been an important and interesting debate in the sense that to a considerable extent hon. Members have spoken with one voice. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere for making that possible.

Rutherglen Maternity Hospital

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: My reason for requesting the debate is that Greater Glasgow health board has issued a consultation paper which proposes, among other things, the closure of Rutherglen maternity hospital. The debate is a direct response to that proposal. I have the support of my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
The hospital was officially opened in May 1979 and has clearly established a first-class record for providing service to the area. The proposal is to close the hospital and to direct the people in its catchment area to Southern general hospital. The catchment area consists basically of Cambuslang, Halfway, Rutherglen, Toryglen and East Kilbride, in which a third of the mothers attending the hospital live, and it includes a swathe of south Glasgow. That is a big area containing 250,000 people. In contrast to many areas and to proposals for hospital closures, this catchment area is expanding, especially in East Kilbride.
The board's only justification for the closure is the "stand-alone" principle, with which I shall deal later. I am bitterly disappointed that, in a 20-page document, the future of the hospital is dealt with in six lines, within which the hospital and its ethos and service are dismissed by the board. It is disgraceful that the hospital is felt to be so unimportant that it is dealt with in such a short space.
By the end of the year, the hospital will have delivered almost 50,000 babies. It has an excellent record not only for the service that it was started to provide but for the various services that the hospital has developed since it opened. It provides a day-care unit, a parenthood education department, a community midwifery base, physiotherapy and speech therapy units, and two pre and post-natal wards with 50 beds. The ground floors house an antenatal clinic, ultrasound facilities, an X-ray department, a dietician, social workers, a pharmacy, biochemistry and an in-service training department.
I do not intend any criticism of any hospital anywhere in the Greater Glasgow health board area when I say that I cannot think of a more modern and up-to-date maternity facility in that area. As befits a centre of excellence, it continues to expand its services. Recent developments include a pre-pregnancy clinic which provides consultant assessment and counselling on a one-to-one basis. The hospital has an Ultramark 9 scanner, which is one of the most up-to-date available. It has a day-care unit for the monitoring and assessment of maternal and foetal well-being and it provides a comfortable environment. I shall deal with that later in my speech. It has a host of special facilities which it has developed over the years, and that justifies my view that it is a first-class centre of excellence.
Over the years, two wards have been closed on the top floor. The board made a special case on that to the Minister, but they were closed as a result of the shorter time that women now stay in hospital after having their babies—it has dropped from over a week in some cases to just a couple of days. In the spirit and attitude of the Rutherglen maternity hospital, those wards have been put to positive use and now contain the X-ray service and

physiotherapists and speech therapists. One indication of the work that has been put in by the hospital staff is community support. Fund-raising events have been held frequently to ensure that the hospital is one of the best equipped in the city of Glasgow or the surrounding area. There was such an input from people that it has become a vital care in the community asset in which most of the younger people have a firm stake. The hospital has an excellent record in clinical safety, and I shall expand on that when dealing with the stand-alone argument.
In addition to the services which I have mentioned, the hospital has a first-class training department. It is part of the Victoria infirmary NHS trust and is committed to the pursuit of excellence through clinical training, audit and research. It provides higher professional training for senior registrars, and participates in an extensive range of clinical audit and research projects, which include a leading UK role in fish oil trials in pregnancy. There has been a systematic review of clinical practice in labour suites and it has locally co-ordinated the Scottish joint breast feeding initiative. It uses the Cochrane database which provides information on clinical trials in obstetrics. Those and other continuing developments in clinical practice clearly show that it is not just a maternity hospital but a centre of excellence.

Mr. Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend's views are strongly expressed in my community. Some 900 births a year—two thirds of all the births in East Kilbride—occur in that hospital. Its closure will have a major impact on the delivery of hospital, maternity and obstetric services in that important part of Lanarkshire. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising these issues and wish him well in his campaign, which has the full support of my constituents.

Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. East Kilbride is a key part of the area that is covered by Rutherglen maternity hospital. That is shown by the fact that the East Kilbride community, led by Joe Quigg, was the first of the communities served by the hospital to initiate a campaign of opposition to the proposed closure. That group was, of course, supported by my hon. Friend.
One of the key points which even the Government seem to accept in the provision of services in the NHS is women's choice. If Rutherglen maternity hospital is removed as a choice, the women in the population of 250,000 people in the catchment area will have their choice removed at a stroke. That is unacceptable and it will be challenged.
As I have said, the stand-alone principle was the reason given by the board for closing the hospital. It takes the view that a maternity hospital should not stand alone from acute hospital services in case anything happens to a mother or baby during birth. The fact that the board dealt with that in only six lines shows that it does not have a large base on which to justify the stand-alone theory. If throughout the medical world there were a proven and accepted clinical reason for stand-alone maternity hospitals being regarded as unsafe and bad practice, I would not argue against it. If the clinical world said that such a system was not good for pregnant mothers, I would accept it. But the board's reasoning is disputed not just by lay people but by medical people and by the Victoria infirmary NHS trust board. The proposal should be reconsidered.
I would like to see the look on the faces of Scottish Office Ministers if the policy to abolish stand-alone maternity hospitals was implemented throughout Scotland, because they would then be responsible for trying to finance the building of replacement new hospitals. The policy has ramifications for Scotland, if not for the United Kingdom.
Let us consider the practical opposition to the stand-alone hospitals. Since Rutherglen was built, no mother has died either during or after transfer to the Victoria infirmary because of complications. The maternity hospital has a good track record. Greater Glasgow health board, to its credit, has not sought to cite any occasion when lives have been lost because of the stand-alone policy. I accept that the board must consider all aspects of health care, but it does not seek to fulfil the aim of providing optimum services in all health services. It does not station ambulances on motorways because of the bad risk of accidents taking place there. I do not see why we should accept its argument that, by abandoning the stand-alone maternity unit, it will provide optimum services to mothers in the catchment area.
The board's decision comes down to an unseen reason—cost. Mothers in the catchment area will be expected to travel to Southern general hospital in Govan, a journey which will take an extra 15 minutes. Who is say that that extra travelling time for those from Blantyre, East Kilbride or Halfway will not cause problems for mothers and babies and the people looking after them? The board has taken no account of the complications that could arise in that 15 minutes.
I make no criticism of any other hospital, but the board has tried to suggest that the acute and maternity services at Southern general are side by side. I have been reliably informed by people in the health service that should a mother develop complications in the maternity unit at that hospital, she would have to be transferred to the acute hospital services site by ambulance, because there is no direct route. That shoots down the argument that Rutherglen should be closed because of the delays experienced when mothers have to be transferred, because of complications, from that maternity hospital to the Victoria infirmary. The same argument applies to the Southern general, so where is the safety gain?
I pay tribute to a number of people who have campaigned for Rutherglen maternity hospital. They include members of the Victoria infirmary NHS trust board, who support the retention of Rutherglen. The campaign has received excellent support and backing from the chief executive of that trust, Barry Small, and one of the managers at Rutherglen maternity hospital, Jim Bretherton. One of the key people to challenge the stand-alone theory is Mrs. Kim Margey, of Rutherglen, who is a member of the National Childbirth Trust. Those people are part of the community campaign against the closure of Rutherglen.
The strength of local feeling was revealed when I organised a meeting of delegates from local community groups in the catchment area, when more than 400 people turned out. I remember the atmosphere in the hall when Dr. Neil McDougall illustrated the efforts of the staff to provide good services to the public. He came across extremely well and had the support of the audience. A host of other people and organisations are behind

Rutherglen maternity hospital, for example, the Womens Royal Voluntary Service, which has supported the hospital for many years. That hospital and the services which it provides are valued in our community. I cannot vouch for those services, but my wife has certainly been a consumer of them. My younger son, Brian, is a true-born Ruglonian, because he was born at that maternity hospital, within the borders of Rutherglen town council and borough.
The hospital is rooted in the heart of the community. The chairman of Greater Glasgow health board, Sir Robert Calderwood, whom I respect, has said:
In drawing up these proposals, the Board has sought to emphasise the importance of the involving of local communities in the provision of health care. 
The community served by the Rutherglen maternity hospital want it to remain open and it will continue to make that case. If Sir Robert is true to his word and the board listens to the community served by the hospital, the closure proposal will be withdrawn. The hospital and its staff will then be allowed to get on with providing their first-class service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) warmly on securing a debate on this important subject, which I know is of great interest to him and to his constituents.
I should like to set out the current position on the future of Rutherglen hospital. Greater Glasgow health board has issued for public consultation a document setting out its purchasing intentions for acute and maternity services to the year 2001. That document sets out, among other matters, proposals for the reorganisation of maternity services for the Greater Glasgow health board area. The proposals suggest that Rutherglen hospital should close as part of the reorganisation and creation of new maternity services for the area.
Greater Glasgow health board is, of course, aware of the impact that its proposals will have outwith Glasgow. For example, over recent years the board has been in discussion with Lanarkshire health board. Its views have been sought as part of the current consultation exercise. The board will consider all responses lodged with it by the consultation deadline of 30 April. Any subsequent proposal by it to close the hospital would be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He would have to he satisfied that better services would be put in place before he would agree to any such proposal.
May I reassure the hon. Member and the House that the current debate in Glasgow on how best to provide maternity care should not be taken to reflect on the staff and standard of care provided at Rutherglen hospital; but the board believes that continual improvement in care and services is vital. With that in mind, the board is merely seeking better ways of doing what it already does well.
The proposals in the Glasgow consultation document reflect a concern on the part of the board that, wherever practicable, maternity units should have the availability and back-up of the full range of clinical support services of a major acute hospital. As the hon. Member will know, the document sets out an argument against the Glasgow


area retaining stand-alone maternity facilities. The health board aims to provide expert maternity services with full back-up facilities on site.
For the benefit of those present, Greater Glasgow has four NHS trusts which manage maternity services. Those services are currently organised from the Southern general hospital, the Queen Mother's hospital at Yorkhill, the Glasgow Royal maternity hospital and Rutherglen. In all, some 313 maternity beds are available. The consultation document, in proposing a reduction in bed numbers to 244, was arrived at following full discussions with local clinicians and general practitioners.
As its consultation document points out, 244 beds by the year 2001 is considered by the health board to be appropriate to estimated need and appropriate for the provision of a safe complement of beds for the city. That level of provision also takes account of the needs of women who may decide to come to Glasgow for their deliveries and maternity care in preference to their local health board services.
I have mentioned safety in terms of the board's views on future bed numbers. Safety is also a key consideration, of course, in the organisation of all health care—no less so for maternity services. Again, for the benefit of those hon. Members present, it is worth noting the consideration that lies behind the Greater Glasgow board's wish to have on-site full acute facilities to back up its maternity services.
In cases where mothers experience difficulties and complications after giving birth, it is obviously desirable and safer for all concerned that the full range of clinical support facilities of a major acute hospital be available on site. This is clearly set out in the board's consultation document.
There is another equally important consideration that has informed the Greater Glasgow board's thinking in this matter. As in most spheres of medicine, new techniques are also being developed by obstetricians, which allow the antenatal diagnosis of congenital disorders as part of the specialty of perinatal medicine. Where neonatal surgery and complex neonatal paediatric care are required, that can now be diagnosed before delivery. The board is of the view that there are clear safety benefits to be gained were babies in this category to be delivered and cared for on the site of the main neonatal surgical and medical paediatric unit—Yorkhill hospital, of course—and continuing services from the Queen Mother's hospital at the Yorkhill site is consistent with the board's view on back-up and the availability of specialist care.

Mr. Ingram: Although I take on board some of the Minister's arguments, I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) about the views expressed by doctors at Rutherglen maternity hospital which, in a sense, tend to contradict some of the Minister's remarks. It is worth bearing in mind that there are about six maternal deaths per 1,000 in the United Kingdom but that there has not been one maternal death at Rutherglen maternity hospital since it was opened. The proportion of perinatal deaths throughout the United Kingdom is nine per 1,000 but only five per 1,000 at Rutherglen maternity. Those figures tend to cancel the safety worries about the hospital as a stand-alone facility.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's point will be taken into account in the

consultation. The hoard is sympathetic to the views of those who support Rutherglen and will take those views into account before reaching a final decision. As I said, the Secretary of State's consent is required for any proposal to close Rutherglen.
As a dedicated sick children's hospital with associated academic units, Yorkhill is unique in the United Kingdom. As the board points out, this facility offers particular advantages in the care and treatment of sick newborn babies.
It is worth taking a step back for a moment and reminding ourselves of the great strides that have been made in developing maternity care in Scotland. Over the past few years, there have been steady improvements in maternal and infant health. Outcomes in childbirth in Scotland as a whole compare favourably with levels anywhere in the developed world. Since 1980, the rates of perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality have fallen by more than one third and the rates of maternal mortality are now so low that the fear of dying in childbirth has all but been eradicated. We should never take this achievement for granted, and it is worth reflecting how real a danger maternal mortality was until comparatively recently. We should never be complacent about these achievements—as ever, there is still further progress to be made.
Rutherglen does not have the advantage of being attached on site to the full range of back-up clinical support facilities—most critically, blood transfusion services—routinely found in a large acute hospital. That is why the board, having decided on the best course for the organisation and provision of modern services, is recommending the closure of Rutherglen.
As hon. Members will know, Rutherglen is a stand-alone maternity hospital. It has a proud history; it is held in high regard by the many mothers whose babies were delivered there and it is viewed with fondness, I am sure, by those born there. There will always be genuinely held strong feelings and attachments to local facilities, and the views offered in the consultation process and in this debate will further inform the health board's consideration of the proposals. Rutherglen hospital was opened in 1978 and currently has 56 beds, 15 special care cots and two intensive care cots. The hospital dealt with some 3,036 deliveries last year.
I mentioned that the Greater Glasgow board is in touch with neighbouring health boards on the proposals. Hon. Members may wish to know that, although it will be for individual mothers and their GPs to determine where individual births would occur, if Rutherglen were not available there would be sufficient capacity within existing facilities in Lanarkshire—principally at Bellshill hospital but also at Law hospital—to accommodate the current and anticipated levels of deliveries for Lanarkshire without any adverse effect on the quality of care.

Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very generous in giving way; that is much appreciated. I refer again to the heart of the problem, which is the stand-alone theory. Would he care to comment on the fact that the latest report states that only two patients in 3,000 in the past year were transferred from Rutherglen maternity hospital?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is a telling point, which will inevitably be considered in the consultation. I have no axe to grind. Clearly, the hon.


Gentleman wants the very best services that he can get for his constituents. Were Rutherglen to be closed, current anticipated Lanarkshire birth levels could be accommodated at Bellshill and Law hospitals without quality being compromised. The key point is that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that there will be an improvement in services before he consents to any proposal from the board.
In the board's view, the forecast number of deliveries for the year 2001 could be met satisfactorily in the three proposed maternity units. Local access will, of course, be given full consideration, and geographical circumstances, which have been mentioned, will also be taken into account by the Secretary of State in his consideration of all closure proposals.
The Secretary of State will need to study the proposals carefully in the light of Government policy on the provision of maternity services. I shall briefly spell out that policy. I have outlined already some of the significant improvements that have been made over the years in maternity care. In particular, there has, of course, been a move to develop more sensitive, flexible and safe systems of care.
The Scottish Office has been keen to promote those developments. Last year, its policy review on the provision of maternity services in Scotland set the framework for action by health boards. It affirmed the importance of delivering maternity care which is sensitive and effective and which offers the best value for money. It asked health boards to examine their existing services with a view to further improving choices in maternity care—a matter that the hon. Gentleman stressed—to promoting DOMINO and other community-based schemes and to achieving a shift from specialised to less specialised forms of care.
Meanwhile, the CRAG/SCOTMEG group—the Clinical Research and Audit Group and the Scottish Management Efficiency Group—on maternity services has been looking in more detail at particular aspects of maternity care, with a remit to develop strategies for raising standards and improving training. The Government attach the highest importance to making certain that while these improvements take place, we continue to maintain the high standards of safety that have been achieved.
The benefits of easy access to services have to be considered alongside the need for sufficient concentration of staffing and resources to allow the delivery units to offer first-rate medical care, including the sophisticated technology of special baby care and neonatal intensive care units.
Delivery facilities need to handle enough births to ensure that clinical staff can keep up and improve their skills and experience in dealing with the more difficult cases and with emergencies. Proper arrangements need to be on hand to ensure 24-hour emergency medical cover and access to sophisticated clinical back-up. In short, the key is to work out for each local area, and in a way that is sensitive to local circumstances, the proper balance between the concentration and dispersal of resources for maternity services.
In reaching its planned configuration for bed numbers and locations, the Greater Glasgow health board has, quite properly at this stage, not announced what the final distribution of maternity beds will be between the three proposed sites. That remains a matter for discussion with clinicians. The location of neonatal intensive care cots will also be subject to clinical input before decisions are made. However, I know that, whatever the outcome, the board and NHS trusts will arrive at a flexible arrangement that can respond to future changes in need.
I am not in a position to anticipate the final outcome of the consultation exercise or the Secretary of State's decision, but the points made by the hon. Members for Rutherglen and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) will be fully taken into account. There is no hidden agenda in the board's consideration of the organisation of maternity care provided for Glasgow. The current proposals have arisen from a genuine review of how best to match maternity care to need and how best to provide that care for the Greater Glasgow health board area. This strategy review is not driven by any artificial target on bed numbers. No target exists. The board's actions are confirmation of the board's continuing commitment to the policy of putting patients' needs first. We look forward to receiving its proposals following the conclusion of its consultations on 30 April.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen on raising the important matter. The fact that so many of his hon. Friends—the hon. Members for East Kilbride and for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—are—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Education in Kent

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to open an Adjournment debate on education in Kent, for it gives me the opportunity to comment on change—desirable and undesirable—in the structure, motivation, direction and philosophy in maintaining provision through the agency of Kent county council.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Kent and I wish to place on record our unswerving and total support for the many hundreds of schools—local education authority-maintained and grant-maintained—in the county. We recognise fully the dedication of teachers, governors and parents who service the range and variety of schools in Kent, thus giving local parents a range of choice second to none in England and, therefore, giving Kent's children the opportunity of a first-rate education: the best start in life possible.
I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Graveshan-i (Mr. Arnold) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw) supporting me today. Those of us who represent Kentish constituencies have wasted no opportunity at any time to praise Kent schools, not as a matter of form, but for genuine reasons of pride and admiration.
Until recently, there was a symmetry of interests between the local education authority, schools and parents. 'That symmetry of interests and working together to improve standards in Kent has been ruthlessly destroyed by the advent of the Lib-Lab pact at county hall. It is to that regime in Maidstone that I want to direct my charges. I charge it with wilful politicisation of the education bureaucracy, a total and cynical disregard of pledged commitments made while in opposition about open government and the need for transparency and accountability, a manifestation of complete hostility to the range of national policies, which allow Kent to enjoy the variety of schools and to permit the greater involvement of parents in the running of their children's school, and financial incompetence. The Lib-Lab pact in Maidstone is trying every which way to avoid owning up to financial irresponsibility of the like never before seen in Kent at county level.
The final straw for us in Kent since the loss of control by the Conservative party in May 1993 was that, a few weeks ago, the director of education services issued under his name a leaflet paid for by the council tax payers of Kent, which contained nothing more than a political, anti-Government message. The leaflet was issued at a cost of several thousand pounds to each local education authority-maintained school in Kent. No consultation was allowed with the governing bodies of those schools, although it is said that some governors, at some meetings, asked for some information about the future budget.
Copies of the leaflet simply arrived one afternoon at local schools and the teachers, staff and heads were told to distribute them. Many chairmen of governors, not only Conservatives, have expressed great concern over the use of teaching staff to pass on to parents in our communities a clearly political message. I am glad that a number of

head teachers in north-west Kent refused to send out the leaflet because they felt that it was a political message and not part of their duty and responsibility.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept from me as a chartered accountant that the figures quoted in that leaflet were highly selective and designed solely for a political purpose? We must question the basis and the appropriateness of a director of education issuing such a leaflet under his name and whether he is able to continue to be an independent director of education, or whether he should get out of his bureaucrat's office and admit that he wants to play politics and become a politician.

Mr. Dunn: The director of education in Kent has made known on several public occasions his hostilities to the policies of this Government. I am sure that he will read with interest the comments of my hon. Friend.
With regard to the leaflet, none of us in this Chamber objects to the political masters and mistresses of lire county of Kent issuing a message if they wish to do so. What is unparalleled in my 16 years in the House is the use of the director of education for the purposes of party political activities. That is wrong. What is more interesting about that particular unfolding of events is that I was told by the chief executive of Kent county council—a professional man indeed—that he did not see the leaflet in draft form until it had gone out. That is a significant development. What is going on between the different arms of the county bureaucracy?
I am fully aware that that development is not new. All of us—I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the debate—remember that, in the county council election campaign in April and May of 1993, neither the Labour or Liberal parties, nor any of my local Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates, made any reference whatever to their opposition to GM schools, although there was a reference to it in their manifesto kept in Maidstone. Many of them have since refused to back their local schools in ballots to become grant-maintained.
Kent council is bypassing the governing bodies, has made a commitment since 1993 to do nothing to assist in the forward movement of Government policies and, of course, as we know, last week descended into the sort of anarchy that we used to associate with central London Labour-controlled boroughs, by refusing on a number of occasions to allow members of the Conservative group on the county council to speak on important issues. That led to a walk-out by the Conservative group, which, of course, has the full support of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
What was significant about the budget debate the other day was that there was no publication of staffing levels for the years ahead. Over the past two years of Lib-Lab control, central staff numbers in Kent county council have risen from 14,694 to 15,556 persons. Thus, we are concerned about the reduction in KCC's commitments, while the level of bureaucracy has risen.

Mr. James Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most shameful result of that swelling bureaucracy, as the council increased numbers of central staff, was that at the same time it was hacking savagely at three particular areas of education: discretionary grants for those over 16 years old who complete their A-levels


and foundation courses at colleges of further education, travel expenses for the over-16s and the adult education service, much prized in Kent?

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation of those matters. Of course, there are other examples of waste, not least conferences, the Kent partnership programme, leaflets being issued, and attempts to force schools on local communities that do not want them. All hon. Members can find examples of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent in Kent for quite the wrong purposes. It is the nature of the beast at county hall to want to cut high-profile services in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Dame Peggy Fenner: The matter must be set against the background of half our secondary school pupils now in grant-maintained schools, for which Kent county council will have no budget at all, of no funding for further education, which is now the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council, and of no careers service, and yet there is an increase in staff, and of the educational core staff in Maidstone. That is set against the background of a much declining role in education budgeting.

Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. I shall quote the comments of the leader of the Conservative group, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, who, on 23 February 1995, said:
The KCC has lost much of its responsibility and role; 50 per cent. of our secondary school children are in Grant Maintained schools out of KCC control; we have lost Further Education and now Careers and Police. Despite this loss KCC has not reduced its central administration accordingly".
It is Conservative Members' duty to make every school, every grant-maintained school, every grammar school, every high school and every city technology college aware of the hostility of the Lib-Lab pact on KCC. KCC is not serving the people; it is frightening the people.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Surely one of the most shocking figures concerns the pay rises that the administrative staff have been awarded. They have totalled 7.1 per cent. over the past two years, which is 1.5 per cent. more than the teachers are receiving. Were not our Conservative colleagues on the county council right to oppose that increase?

Mr. Dunn: The Conservative group on KCC put forward its own budget proposals, which could have funded the teachers' pay increase, restored the cuts that the Lib-Lab pact has made, and given Kent the familiar robust financial competence that had existed for more than 100 years. If it is a matter of the people or of Kent county council, it is our job, duty and pleasure to back the people every time.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on raising this important subject. I can do no better than deal with the ill-informed comments of the signatories to early-day motion 708, which was tabled last night by six hon. Members, none of whose constituency is within 100 miles of Kent. Indeed, most are in the north of England. I shall deal with their specific points.
First, the signatories claim that 1 per cent. had been provided by the Lib-Lab pact for the teachers' pay increase in Kent. What they fail to state is that, simultaneously in the education budget papers, the Lib-Lab pact cut 1 per cent. from schools' delegated budgets, thereby taking them back to zero—in other words, no increase. Only last week, the Lib-Lab pact took a leaf out of the Conservative budget proposals to fund a 1 per cent. increase by drawing down from the over-provided GM schools common formula provision.
Secondly, in my speech on 7 February, I thanked the Government for a 2 per cent. increase in Kent's external funding—that is, revenue support grant and the business rate allocation—from £754 million to £770 million for KCC and Kent police combined. The Lib-Lab pact has claimed a £5.5 million cut. It does that by bringing in other specific grants, and including one year's figures but not the next, to produce the cut that it wishes to allege. That is quite bogus.
One can do anything if one is prepared to massage figures. In fact, I could create a massive funding increase for Kent county council by adding in the windfall of £20 million that KCC has saved from lower interest rates and £10 million from land sales, £30 million of which, incidentally, it has already blown.
Thirdly, I refer to conferences. The early-day motion mentions the Great Danes conference at a four-star hotel, which cost £30,000. The signatories are very coy about the other KCC conferences, which cost the Kent council tax payer 10 times as much. The Great Danes conference was addressed by, among others, Roy Pryke, the most effective politician of the left-wing troika running Kent education, the others being the Lib-Lab co-chairs, who have been notably hiding behind Roy Pryke's skirts as the flak has rightly flown of late. Another speaker was Professor Ted Wragg, a consistent opponent of Government education policies. He has said:
The free market plans in curriculum and testing will restore and extend the stigma of premature failure.
Professor Wragg has also said:
As the league table philosophy begins to predominate the less able will increasingly be seen as cripples.
He further said:
Statethink was unknown in this country until 1988. It will be the norm in future.
I cannot help but think that that party political stuff, if repeated at the conference, was no help at all. It was a Lib-Lab political fun day, but it wasted vast sums of council tax payers' money.
Fourthly, the signatories to the early-day motion speak of cuts in the county council administration due to the departure of further education colleges. How do they know? As we have heard, the Lib-Lab pact has mysteriously left staffing numbers out of the budget book for the first time ever in Kent. All that we have to go on are the gross staffing numbers of the central organisation, which have risen from 14,694, when the Lib-Labs came in, to 15,556 today, an increase of 862.
In fact, as has been mentioned, with the departure of further education colleges, 88 GM schools and the careers service and with contracting out, administration costs and staff numbers should have fallen sharply. In practice, they have not. The county auditor, Price Waterhouse, has reported that
This will not be sustainable.


I contend that millions of pounds, which are tied up, could have gone to our school budgets.
Fifthly, the signatories to the early-day motion claim that there are £1.8 million savings in central management costs. I have looked at the details. The Lib-Lab pact claims that £600,000 will come from income generation proposals, but no details of that are revealed, and that a further £416,000 is saved from cutting contingency funding. In other words, £1 million of savings is bogus. I could even further reduce the original savings figure of £800,000.
So much for the early-day motion. My hon. Friends from Kent, in early-day motion 710, were right: the Lib-Lab Members' arguments are as remote to Kent as they are to their own constituencies.

Mr. David Shaw: On the point that there were no staffing numbers included in the budgets that were put before Kent county council, is my hon. Friend aware that the council's accounts since the Lib-Labs have taken over have not been signed off by the auditors and that a number of people have raised questions about those accounts? Is he further aware that the accounts contain no information about directors' remuneration or the chief executive's remuneration? We live in an age of openness, supposedly, and the Labour party is trying to encourage openness, but much information about the levels of staffing and bureaucracy in Kent is not available.
May I finally put to my hon. Friend the point that grant-maintained—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That intervention was quite long enough.

Mr. Arnold: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) seems to make the point that the Lib-Lab pact councillors do not have a clue about how to run a vast organisation. We are talking about our children's education and an organisation that has a turnover of more than £1 billion a year.
The debate has the elements of a tragedy. The Lib-Lab pact has underfunded our schools, slashed adult education, and hit discretionary grants, school transport and the youth service. It is all so unnecessary. I cannot make up my mind whether it is due to the breathtaking incompetence of the Lib-Lab pact or political malice to incite ill-informed Government-bashing. It is probably both.
In a cavalier fashion, the Lib-Labs first tried to gag the Conservative KCC alternative budget, then they voted it down. That budget would have fully funded teachers' pay, protected the schools budget, and reversed cuts in adult education and the other services that I mentioned. Why can Conservatives on the county council do that? It is because they, the Conservative county councillors, have years of experience in managing that vast organisation. They have produced a realistic budget with the front line as the priority. It is a tragedy, because education in Kent has been making so much progress. In 88 schools, parents and governors have already opted to become grant-maintained, and I shall cite three rapid examples.
St. George's comprehensive school in my constituency has a chairman of governors, Joe King, who is a Labour party supporter. But in his enthusiasm for grant-maintained status, he said:
GM schools are so much cleaner and tidier looking".

He has also said that extra money is available because schools do not have to support central services and can buy what they need, and that the culture is not dependency based, but results from the self-confidence that comes from recruiting a good team and enabling it to seek the best for the school in its central task of teaching and learning.
The Northfleet school for boys is in the strongest Labour ward in Kent, yet John Hassett, its headmaster, has said:
The freedom from KCC petty interference, and its politicians in Maidstone, who have far less awareness of local needs and of our pupils, has allowed this school to set its own local strategy—we are now a real community school".
The results for that high school have improved so that 20 per cent., rather than the previous proportion of 10 per cent., achieve five grade Cs and above.
Lastly, in Southfields school, a high school with a difficult catchment area, the redeployment of resources has improved its performance so that, whereas before it became grant-maintained 1 per cent. of its pupils achieved five GCSEs and more, 8 per cent. achieved that goal last year, and the school expects the percentage to double this year.
Those educational advances are what the debate in Kent should be about. Either the Lib-Lab pact on Kent county council could not run a whelk stall or it is using the children of Kent as a party political battering ram. Which is it?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who has done a service not only for his constituents but For everyone living in Kent, in drawing the attention of the House to the problems that he has identified within that county. He was eloquently backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who rightly took the opportunity to demolish just about every word in early-day motion 708, and also by the presence of and the interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). [Interruption.] And, of course, by the presence of several more of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).
I hope and trust that the wise words uttered by my hon. Friends will be widely read after the debate and will be digested by their constituents. Understandably, by taking a significant amount of time, my hon. Friends have left rather less time at my disposal, but I do not complain on that score because the quality of their contributions merited full and frank exposure.
I shall begin by commenting on the general issue uppermost in the minds of many parents and teachers—the education budget. The first aspect of education expenditure about which everyone in the House must be clear is that Kent county council, like every other local authority, is responsible for setting its own budget and for deciding its own priorities between and within services. It is the council that has the final say on how much is spent on education and how much on other services.
It has been alleged elsewhere that Kent has been forced to cut millions of pounds from its education budget for the forthcoming financial year. But there is no reason why


that should happen. Kent's education standard spending assessment will increase, and under the capping rules it will be able to spend more in 1995–96 than it is spending in 1994–95. In total, Kent will be able to spend more than £955 million—nearly £1 billion—on all its services.
So where does the talk about cuts come from? The county council is not cutting what it is actually spending; it is drawing up a shopping list of additional spending, then cutting what it would ideally like to spend if it could buy all the items on the list.
I know that Kent schools, like schools in other areas, will be concerned about the teachers' pay award. The Government have accepted that award, subject to consultation, on the recommendation of the independent schoolteachers review body. The review body acknowledges the fact that financial provision has been set on the basis that pay increases should be offset or more than offset by efficiency gains and increased productivity.
Of course I acknowledge that the award will place local authority budgets under pressure. Ministers have made that clear in recent weeks, and I reiterate it from the Dispatch Box today. But local authorities are large, financially complex organisations, and they have a variety of means at their disposal to realise the efficiency gains needed.
To draw a fairly obvious parallel, the Government expect the Further Education Funding Council to make efficiency gains of 5 per cent. over the coming year. That will be tough but we are confident that the council will make it, and we are entitled to look to local authorities to examine their budgets in a similar way and to learn to live within them, prioritising appropriately.
Schools and parents will want to ask the county council other important questions. How much of its total budget does the county intend to spend on education? What proportion of its schools budget will it delegate to schools? I shall not bandy comparative figures about, because that would be tantamount to telling the council exactly what it should do. But I can say that it has some way to go to catch up with what many local education authorities are already doing on both those fronts. Governors are entitled to look to local authorities to give priority to front-line services such as schools, and I hope and trust that Kent county council will do that.
My hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham, moved on to the general question of grant-maintained schools. As he is well aware, devolving power to institutions is one of the central themes of our education reforms. Our commitment to devolution is not the product of ideology or of some esoteric theory but is based on the commonsense principle that giving more power to managers who are closer to the customers is likely to produce a better service.

Mr. David Shaw: While he is talking about the devolution of power, and the way that that can happen with grant-maintained schools, will my hon. Friend congratulate St. Edmund's school in Dover, which opted out of Kent county council control, became grant-maintained and has

now increased the number of its teaching assistant staff by six to provide more teachers in the classroom? It needed no additional resources to do that.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has graphically, in one sentence, explained precisely the sort of reason why grant-maintained schools are so popular. Of course I join him in congratulating that school and many other grant-maintained schools, especially in Kent, where the concept of self-government has taken off so strongly. As has already been said, half the secondary schools in Kent are now self-governing.
The aims of our policy on grant-maintained schools are clear. They are to raise education standards in GM schools—

Mr. David Blunkett: What about all the rest?

Mr. Squire: I hear what the Opposition education spokesman, who has just joined us, says—but another of our aims is to encourage LEAs to be more responsive to the needs of the schools that they continue to control. For both those aims, the signs are promising.
It is clear that the grant-maintained option, combined with local management, has prompted LEAs to switch from a control to a support mode. There is also clear evidence that GM schools are achieving better results than their LEA counterparts and, not surprisingly, that they are popular with parents.
Sadly, ever since the change of control in Kent county council, the LEA has made it clear that it does not support the policy of encouraging grant-maintained schools, selective schools or city technology colleges. I understand that Kent has decided to freeze building maintenance, other than essential health and safety work, for schools that are balloting parents on GM status. If that is so, it is unjust. GM status is aimed at extending choice for parents and allowing them to decide on the way in which their schools should be managed. It is morally wrong that when they are offered that choice, their school is discriminated against, especially when it is the pupils who suffer.
Perhaps there is some confusion in the minds of the members of the Lib-Lab pact in Kent. Two weeks ago, the Daily Express reported that the leader of the Labour party was studying plans to allow all state schools to opt out of council control. I have news for the leader of the Labour party, which I am willing to give today, free of charge. That plan is unnecessary—the opportunity already exists. If the Labour party could, in the words of Lord Wilson, "take their tanks" off the lawns of schools up and down the country whose only crime is wanting to run themselves, there would be a large increase in the number of grant-maintained schools. That would be popular with parents and with teachers. It would also be popular with a growing number of Labour and Liberal Democrat activists, including Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend made a passing reference—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mine Workings (Northumberland)

2 pm

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise a problem that has existed for some time, but which is raising its head a little more. That problem is stythe coming from old mine workings in Northumberland. I might add that Northumberland is one of the oldest coalfields in Britain, and there are thousands of miles of underground roadways in Northumberland, and also in Durham, where mining has taken place.
Stythe is a common oxide which eats up the oxygen in air. It is not methane, which is a poisonous gas which kills quickly. When I worked in the mines, we called stythe blackdamp, and it is very dangerous. The problem occurs throughout Northumberland, not just in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are in the Chamber, and I am sure that they have stories to tell as well.
The problem arose in a big way in 1985 due to the closure of the last remaining colliery on our side of Blyth, and began when the pumping of the water at the colliery stopped. All the people concerned with stythe in mines have buried their heads in the sand, and nobody has wanted to take the responsibility. My local council had to take British Coal to court to try to get it to do something about stythe. It did—as a matter of good will—but then said that it had no responsibility, because the areas concerned were not its responsibility.
Perhaps the Minister can answer this question. Who is responsible for the old mine workings? It seems that the pits below the old mine workings where some of us worked are now filling up with water for the first time in years, and that is pushing the stythe up into the workings near the surface. The enormous pressure of the water coming in slowly over a period is pushing up the stythe.
I received a letter this morning from Mr. R. Robertson, who was a ventilation engineer with the National Coal Board and with British Coal. He wrote to say that he had seen me on television making a statement, and that I was right. Mr. Robertson is now retired. He said that the situation will get worse due to the rising water coming into the workings where the pumps have been switched off. He was an engineer who began working on the problem in 1988. He mentioned the Pegswood site, where he was involved in an advisory capacity.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is evidence that stythe is under some houses in Pegswood? The problem arises because of the good neighbourly attitude adopted by British Coal, and now by the Coal Authority. I have just spoken to Castle Morpeth council, and I was told that any costs incurred in surveying the problem in the borough will fall on the shoulders of the local authority. Would my hon. Friend like some funding to be made available to deal with the problem by carrying out research and by providing a monitoring system throughout the county?

Mr. Campbell: I could not agree more. Mr. Robertson's letter goes on to say that stythe is a serious matter, and it is getting more serious as time goes by. He has raised his concerns with me, and I am pleased to be able to put them to the Minister today.
As I have said, the rising water is pushing stythe up the old workings. Where the strata is loose, the stythe could find a path anywhere.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Gentleman will know of the tragic death only a few weeks ago of Donald Tollett, who was overcome by gas fumes at Widdrington station in my constituency. He had gone there with a young child to prepare feed for a horse. The gas escaped from mine workings through an old drift. The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do, that there are old drifts and drift entrances all over the county. Does he agree that they must be carefully monitored if we are not to have a repeat of that terrible and tragic incident?

Mr. Campbell: I knew about that tragic death, and it is a shame that a life had to be lost because somebody somewhere has not taken responsibility. That is my argument. Who is taking the responsibility? The Coal Authority has now said that the problem is not its responsibility, but it must be someone's responsibility.
We need a survey to be carried out, because the position is getting worse. Where pits have been closed and pumping has stopped, the water is rising underneath and is pushing the gas up. It could come through anywhere. We do not know where, as some of the old workings are 100 years old and are not on any charts or maps.

Mr. John Cummings: In my constituency we have 12 mines, and Seaham Harbour is a town founded on three mines with perhaps nine pit shafts. My village of Murton was founded upon Murton colliery, which has three large pit shafts, and that area is due to be reclaimed for a housing development. Does my hon. Friend have information that the Government now no longer agree with the "polluter must pay" principle? Does he think that mining communities which have suffered from dirt, filth and noise for 150 years must now stand the cost on their council tax to carry out surveys of what remains of redundant coal sites?

Mr. Campbell: That is the thrust of my argument. British Coal said before that it would do that as a matter of good will. It said that it would put a fan in where it was needed, and possibly do some grouting here and there. But it would not accept responsibility.
I want to refer to what happened in Cramlington at the same time as the man died in Widdrington in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The incident was serious enough for the police, mines rescue and environmental health people to be called out. What appears to have happened—it has happened once before—is that the fan did not pull in the gas. There is another argument there, because we discovered following the incident that the fan there had been contracted out from one mining company to another mining company. We do not know who has got the contract. We know that British Coal has given the contract as a matter of good will, but it still will not accept responsibility.
Has the contract been maintained properly? There was a high level of gas in houses in the area on that day, as atmospheric pressure was light and allowed it to come out of the ground and into the houses. At the environmental health meeting, it was said to be a fairly serious gas leak.
We have found out that the nearest seam was only 15 m below the surface where the houses were built. There is only 2 ft of clay, which is a good barrier to gas. Stythe will not get through clay, but below that is porous sandstone, which the gas will get through—as an ex-miner, I am well aware of that. We found that some of the sewerage and waste disposal pipes were dug into the sandstone and that there was a crevice under the pipe—a path along which the stythe could travel to the manhole cover, up the pipe and into the house.
People experienced great difficulties because they could not strike a match in the house or light the gas if the pilot light went out. They had no central heating. Hon. Members will understand the enormity of the problem. It has happened before, but it is happening more often because the water level is rising in the old mine workings, where we worked many years ago, and is pushing the gas up. As the workings are only 15 m below the houses, we can grasp the seriousness of the problem.
The more the pressure builds up in parts of Northumberland, the more the gas will leak and the more we will want an early warning system. I am not an engineer, only a politician, and I do not know what can be done. I initiated this debate because the problem needs to be aired. Too many people are burying their heads in the sand. There has already been one death and I am sure that the Minister will agree that we do not want any more.
If it is true that the problem is getting worse, the Minister has a responsibility to issue some sort of statement and to say whether the Government are trying to get some action or to have the areas of Northumberland where there are problems surveyed. I am afraid that it is our legacy. Unfortunately, Northumberland is one of the oldest coalfields in the country. The problem is there and it will not go away, so we need to tackle it. We need advice and we need mining engineers. I am sorry, but if it is going to cost money, the Coal Authority will have to take responsibility. Mine workings do not belong to anyone but that authority—I do not know about 100-year-old workings, but I think that the authority took over responsibility for old mine workings, so it is still up to the authority. That responsibility does not belong elsewhere.
Environmental health officers have told me that since 1987 we have had 29 gas warnings in Blyth Valley. I do not know about Castle Morpeth, Berwick or other areas. We have had 29 scares in our area and the number is increasing all the time. Usually, it happens in spring or autumn, when the atmosphere is light and allows the gas to come out of the ground. That is okay if it happens in the middle of a field, but unfortunately, if there are houses or an industrial site, the stythe can find its way in and obviously it can kill. The symptoms are easy to overlook. One feels fluey, tired and nauseous and wants to lie down and sleep. One lady did fall asleep on the couch. She was lucky to be awakened by one of her family. She was lying on a low couch and the stythe was well above the average and reached couch level. Perhaps she would not be here if she had not been woken. That just about sums up the seriousness of the problem and I hope that the Minister can come up with some answers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thank the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) for setting out thoroughly the problems facing parts of Northumberland, which arise from stythe gas emissions predominantly from old coal mine workings. He has shown the particular concern that we all feel, not only for the plight of his constituents but for those in other areas who may be affected. We also heard a little about them.
I join the hon. Gentleman in offering my condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Donald Tollett whose death he mentioned. Unfortunately, he lost his life in February as a result of stythe gas emission.
Blackdamp, as stythe is also called, is a mixture of oxygen-deficient mine gas—predominantly carbon dioxide. As the hon. Gentleman explained, it is known as stythe in Northumberland. Blackdamp and firedamp, or methane, have long been a concern in coal mines. There have been a number of disasters in coalfields throughout Britain and elsewhere in the world as a result of those gases. Much effort has been spent by mine operators and the regulatory authorities to reduce the risk to miners, but that research effort has been focused primarily on improving the safety and efficiency of underground coal mining operations. More generally, much of the attention has been focused on methane, because it is explosive, rather than on carbon dioxide.
As the hon. Gentleman knows and has explained, carbon dioxide is an insidious source of danger. It is colourless and odourless, but is an asphyxiant and is toxic. Breathing becomes difficult in air containing 3 per cent. of carbon dioxide and slight headaches may be experienced. At 10 per cent. by volume, headache, palpitations and breathing difficulties occur and can lead to unconsciousness after about one minute of exposure. In addition, carbon dioxide has a greater density than air and, as he said, that means that it can accumulate readily in confined, poorly ventilated places, forming a layer at floor level into which the unwary may stray without warning. Since it is not generally obvious why the initial victim has become unconscious, rescuers are often put at risk, and it was fortunate that the recent event in Northumberland did not claim more than one life.
Problems of mine gas emissions are by no means restricted to Northumberland. Indeed, mine gas incidents have been recorded in all the major coalfield areas. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the Government's general approach to considering them.
A "Review of the significance of natural contamination to planning and development" was carried out for my Department by the British Geological Survey. One of a series of reports which are to be published shortly by the BGS is entitled "Natural methane, carbon dioxide and oil contamination: relevance to planning and development". It deals with the relevance of natural strata and mine gas emissions in the overall context of surface gaseous hazards and concludes that the most significant actual and potential occurrences of surface methane and carbon dioxide emissions from mines are in areas of shallow coal mining.
The report also concludes that the relatively small number of recorded mine gas emission incidents suggests that the hazard is relatively minor and of local significance compared, for example, with the extensive


problems associated with mining-related subsidence or the gas problems associated with landfill sites. Individual instances can cause severe and sometimes expensive or life-threatening problems, however. The report recommends further studies of the importance and surface impact of gas emissions from abandoned coal mines.
Further to the BGS recommendation, research is under way on "The planning response to methane and other gases from disused coal mines". That research is being undertaken for my Department by Wardell Armstrong and aims to establish the role of the planning system in reducing hazards due to gas emissions from disused coal mines and to prepare a detailed framework of advice for planners, developers, land and property owners, insurers and others. The research is due to be completed later this year.
The research by Wardell Armstrong has included 'a technical review of mine gas sources, migration pathways and emissions. A study of a specific area, involving the gathering of all available data relating to the occurrence of mine gases and the mining, geological, and hydrogeological setting, has been undertaken at Gateshead.

Mr. Michael Clapham: If the survey to which the Minister referred shows that extraction devices should be fitted to some of the mine shafts currently in my constituency, for example, is he telling the House that his Department is prepared to put up the money to have those devices fitted?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the cause of the problem must be found before we look to the source of the solution. It would be appropriate for us to wait for the results of the research, which are expected later this year.

Mr. Cummings: Will the Minister make it crystal clear whether the Government still subscribe to the policy that the polluter must pay, whether it be for surveys or the installation of fans or other associated equipment necessary to drain polluted areas of toxic gases?

Sir Paul Beresford: We have made it clear that the polluter must pay, but in this case we must also work out the cause. Part of the survey will give some indication of that.
Current research and guidance will be reviewed to assess its relevance to mine gas emissions and key legal and planning issues will be examined. The hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun. Although that research is not yet complete, much of the basic data have been gathered and are currently subject to analysis and reporting. Some interesting results are becoming evident.
There may be little problem if the gas stays within an abandoned mine unless people enter that mine. In some cases, however, factors cause the gas to migrate from one place to another. Thus every mine gas incident requires three basic ingredients: obviously, an accumulation of gas within the mine; a migration pathway to the surface; and a triggering event.

Mr. Jack Thompson: The Minister was present when I said earlier that monitoring equipment is being installed in the village of Pegswood in my constituency because of an incident in December 1993. That equipment was provided by the local authority with some help by the Coal Authority on a good neighbourly basis. Does he

recognise that, while all those useful surveys and research are going on, we cannot stick pieces of paper on the ground to prevent the stythe from coming up? What we can do is monitor the problem and, if an alarm goes off because oxygen levels have fallen to below 80 per cent., we can at least warn people. We need help in monitoring now.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman may agree that the problem is so widespread, even though it occurs in isolated areas, that we need to understand it and find out where it is likely to occur before we move in that direction. That is the most constructive thing that we can do.
First, it is worth pointing out that carbon dioxide occurs naturally in soil and rocks and is generated by the oxidation of coal. The formation of stythe in old mines is a relatively slow process, but the gas is likely to be present in any unventilated or abandoned mine workings. Secondly, the processes and physical factors that may influence gas migration are varied. Those may include displacement of gas as water levels rise due to seasonal rainfall variations or the cessation of mine de-watering. Conversely, de-watering of a mine may allow gas to accumulate. The density differs between mine gas mixtures and air influence movements, as do variations in barometric pressure. Thirdly, the extent to which the mine voids are sealed off from the surface, for instance where mine openings have been capped or plugged, or if fissures in the rock are beneath a cover of homogenous clay, has an important influence.
While any, or all, of these factors may be involved in a mine gas incident, a po006Frly ventilated space within which the gas may accumulate and which is entered by people is central to the existence of a hazard. However, it is by no means easy to define all the factors that lead to a mine gas incident because of the complexity of mined ground, which may contain numerous old workings at different levels. Some may have collapsed but others remain open. Mines may have broken through into neighbouring workings to aid ventilation or water control during working. Different levels are connected by numerous shafts and adits. Many old shallow workings and mine openings are unrecorded, as the statutory duty for mine owners to keep mine plans was not introduced until 1850 and the requirement to register abandonment plans was not introduced until 1872. For those reasons, it is also difficult to predict where mine gas incidents may occur, except in a general manner.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has given details of the gases and so on. But he has not touched on the nub of the problem, which is the possible loss of life. I explained the dangerous position in Blyth Valley. We must try to eliminate that, but the Minister has not yet dealt with the matter. He must give assurances to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends that nobody else will die as a result of those gases and that someone will come to our constituencies and put the matter right.

Sir Paul Beresford: I am trying to explain the difficulties and why we need the research. I realise the urgency, which is demonstrated by the fact that, although the research is not yet complete, we are already working on the details that have come in. The full research is expected some time this year.
The researchers, Wardell Armstrong, have collected details of mine gas incidents at 77 sites throughout the coalfield areas of Great Britain. About 25 of those related to carbon dioxide emissions, compared with about 72 per cent. which related to methane. As the effects of carbon dioxide emissions are less easily detected than those of methane, it is possible that more emissions occur than we recognise. Some 50 per cent. of the incidents were found to be linked, or probably linked, to emissions from abandoned mine entries. Another important means of passage of mine gas to the surface is through cracks in hard layers of bedrock.
Most mine gas incidents have been detected because of chance events. While there has been an increasing incidence of reports over the past decade, our preliminary analysis suggests that that may well be due to an increasing awareness of gas hazards and to monitoring of landfill gas, rather than a real increase in the occurrences of emissions from abandoned mines.
We must examine what may be done about hazards due to mine gas emissions. It is the responsibility of the developer to determine the suitability of land for a particular purpose. In particular, the responsibility and subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy rests with the developer and/or landowner. The local planning authority may treat the possibility of mine gas emissions as a material planning consideration and refer to that in development plans. In addition, the authority may wish to satisfy itself whether any land allocated for specific purposes in such a plan may be subject to mine gas problems. However, it remains for the developer to make adequate investigations including, for example, monitoring gas levels in boreholes or mine voids that may exist beneath a development site.
The building regulations require precautions to be taken to avoid danger to health and safety caused by substances found within the ground to be covered by a building. While those mechanisms control new development and changes to the use of land, there is also the issue of existing development, which may be subject to problems.
The Occupiers' Liability Acts place responsibilities on the occupier of land for the safety of employees, legitimate visitors and trespassers on their land or premises. In addition, health and safety at work legislation places responsibilities on employers for the safety of their employees. The same legislation also places on employers a responsibility for maintaining a safe place of work at working mines, including the protection of the public.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities the means to abate a statutory nuisance and to recover the costs from the landowner. This could include escapes of gas which may affect surface properties. A major constraint on early action is, however, the limited extent to which it is possible to predict where and when the gas may escape.
Since the Coal Authority came into being, a single reporting procedure has been implemented irrespective of—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman. Since the Coal Authority came into being, a single reporting procedure has been implemented irrespective of where the responsibility ultimately lies. International Mining Consultants Ltd. has been appointed by the Coal Authority to deal with reported surface hazards. IMCL will investigate reported incidents thoroughly and will liaise with local authorities and emergency services as necessary.
Where the possibility of a problem is recognised, it is possible to take action in several ways. Mine openings may be treated so that gas is vented away from any existing or proposed structure. Precautions can be taken to prevent the ingress of gas into buildings by ensuring that confined spaces are ventilated adequately.
Caution needs to be exercised when carrying out new activities that may provide routes for gas to the surface, such as the drilling of boreholes. The Health and Safety Commission recently issued a consultative document in respect of minimum requirements for the health and safety of drilling operatives in the mineral extractive industries.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I ask the Minister again, who initially has responsibility for the old mine workings? Whose responsibility is it—the local authority, the Minister, or the Coal Authority?

Sir Paul Beresford: As I am trying to say, it is a mixture. I shall write to explain to the hon. Gentleman, if he has not picked it up. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that many of the sources of the gas date from the middle of last century, and there is the additional difficulty of predictability.
The Health and Safety Commission recently issued a consultative document in respect of minimum requirements for health and safety of drilling operatives. Account needs to be taken, where appropriate, of mine gas emissions in proposals for new development and changes of use.
Many of the general issues of which I have spoken apply to Northumberland. It would not be proper to comment on the sad event at Widdrington station, as the circumstances are still—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with South Africa.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Our links with South Africa are strengthening rapidly through trade, aid, sport, science, culture, military help and parliamentary contacts. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid a successful visit to South Africa in September. Her Majesty the Queen's state visit this month will be a strong symbol of the warmth of our friendship.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a tremendous amount of good will in South Africa towards this country, as was demonstrated by the visit of our right hon. Friends the Prime Minister. and the President of the Board of Trade to South Africa? Does he agree that the Government and British companies will have to work hard to ensure that they build on the good will which already exists in South Africa?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree. Our exports had increased by 15 per cent. in the first 11 months of last year. They are more than £1 billion now, invisibles are a further £1 billion approximately and we are the biggest overseas investor in South Africa, so those links are strong and becoming stronger all the time.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made on drawing up proposals for the 1996 intergovernmental conference.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We are developing our approach to next year's intergovernmental conference, based on the principles outlined by the Prime Minister. We are determined to play a positive and constructive role in it, and to ensure a successful outcome which promotes British interests.

Mr. Whittingdale: Is it not increasingly obvious that the convergence criteria set down in the Maastricht treaty and the timetable for achieving them are now utterly discredited? Does my hon. Friend agree that although the convergence criteria in themselves are sensible objectives of economic policy the timetable is a political tool and should be taken out of the treaty altogether?

Mr. Davis: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says about the timetable, and that is reflected to some extent in the Government's stance on the 1996–97 aspect of that timetable. We emphasise the criteria as being more important than the timetable itself, and we are not alone in that. That attitude is also taken, for example, by the head of the Bundesbank, Mr. Tietmeyer, who has made it very clear that the criteria are the key issue and that we have to hit those before any further progress is made.

Mr. Worthington: I have noted with interest what the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary have said

recently about co-operation between Britain and France on defence measures. Following the withdrawal, in effect, of the United States from United Nations peacekeeping operations and the lack of logistical support, do the Government regard the intergovernmental conference as a suitable framework in which there might be more European co-operation to give logistical support to peacekeeping operations in Africa?

Mr. Davis: That sort of thing is happening anyway, but the hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as the sort of things being countenanced as the defence component of the IGC are what are called Petersburg-type actions, which involve peacekeeping and other similar measures, not as a replacement or in any way a supplanting or weakening of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Colvin: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is important that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary should go to the IGC with the whole-hearted support of the House and the people we represent. Does he agree, however, that if there were a referendum on any subject before the IGC, he would go to the conference not with our support but in a straitjacket and that any referendum—if there is to be one—should therefore be after the IGC and not before?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has a good point. Any referendum would have importance only in the event cif a change that is of constitutional significance. To hold a referendum in advance would imply that we intended to negotiate such a change. That is not what we have in mind.

China

Mr Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to the Chinese Government regarding their human rights record.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): We frequently raise human rights issues with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and with our European partners. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so during his meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister last September and I shall be doing so later this afternoon with the Chinese ambassador. At the UN Commission on Human Rights this year, the European Union is co-sponsoring a draft resolution on China.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Although I welcome that answer, I hope that we shall keep up the pressure. As the United Kingdom is the largest European investor in China and trade is increasing in both directions, will the Minister ensure that human rights are kept high on the agenda? I think in particular of the plight of the Tibetan people, the fact that 55 offences carry the death penalty, and the increasing number of attacks on anyone who argues with the Chinese Government. Will the Minister ensure that the right balance is struck and that our vigilance is kept up?

Mr. Goodlad: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We of course share his deep concern about abuses of human rights in China, including imprisonment for religious and political beliefs and the repression in Tibet. We regularly raise those matters with the Chinese


authorities; but we think it in the interests of the Chinese people as well as everyone else that the healthy trade to which the hon. Gentleman refers should continue.

Lady Olga Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this Government have done more than any other in the world to promote human rights and good government?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes.

Western Sahara

Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Western Sahara.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The United Nations Secretary-General stated in his report to the Security Council in December that, subject to further satisfactory progress, he hoped to be able to recommend in March that the referendum on Western Sahara be held in October this year. Security Council resolution 973, adopted in January, provided for the reinforcement of the UN's identification commission, which should enable the compilation of the voter list to be speeded up.

Mr. Mudie: The House will be delighted with that reply. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure the House that he will instruct our representatives at the United Nations to take any necessary initiative if there seems any likelihood that the date will not be adhered to.

Mr. Hogg: I am pleased to be able to give the hon. Gentleman pleasure. There is, however, a problem with the speed at which voter identification is taking place. The commission is processing voters at a rate of about 2,000 a week, so it might be difficult to make the October date, but we would most certainly like the referendum to take place at the latter end of this year.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that since the United Nations peacekeeping effort in Western Sahara began about three and a half years ago, £87 million has been spent on the operation and there has been a great deal of foot-dragging? Will he note the evidence given by Ambassador Ruddy to the United States congressional committee in respect of this foot-dragging; and will he do his level best to ensure that the date does not slip?

Mr. Hogg: I very much hope that the date will not slip. The Ruddy allegations are serious and the United Nations has sent a team to investigate whether they have substance.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Apart from the problem of registration of voters, has the Foreign Office detected any other problems which may impede the referendum? There has been quite a lot of opposition hitherto.

Mr. Hogg: The identification of voters is a substantial obstacle to holding the referendum in October, although I hope that it will be possible to hold it then. I do not immediately call to mind any other problems, but knowing the nature of the business I suspect that there are some. However, the identification of voters is certainly the principal difficulty.

Chechnya

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning events in Chechnya.

Mr. Hurd: We have told the Russian Government that we want to see early progress towards a political resolution of the conflict in Chechnya and full access for humanitarian relief. In Russia as a whole our main concerns are continued press freedom, continued economic reform and adherence to the electoral timetable.
I raised those matters with the Russian Foreign Minister in Stockholm on 14 February and we shall take the opportunity of the visit of the Russian Prime Minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin, who arrives today, to reinforce that message.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will do everything in his power to form an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission to Chechnya? If he agrees with me and others, can he say whether any efforts have been made to press the Russians to form such a mission?

Mr. Hurd: Two days ago in Vienna I saw Ambassador Gyarmati, who led the OSCE mission into Chechnya a few weeks ago. A second mission is there now under Swiss leadership. They are seeking to press for observance of human rights, with all that that means, and access for humanitarian relief. That the Russians allowed the OSCE mission into the area is one of the few good signs to come out of Chechnya in recent weeks.

Sir Peter Emery: In any negotiations with the Russians, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that a successful conclusion on Chechnya and the points that he raised initially in answering the question have considerable effects on other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States and are therefore of great importance for the rest of the world as well as for relations between ourselves and Russia?

Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. The first to have suffered are, of course, the Chechnyans themselves, but the anxiety which has spread from that tragedy into all the countries of the former Soviet Union, and the controversy in Moscow itself, puts a cloud—a passing cloud, I hope—over the prospects for reform.

Mr. Corbyn: When the Foreign Secretary meets the Russian Prime Minister, will he tell him that millions of people around the world found the behaviour of the Russian army troops and the bombing in Chechnya abominable and the destruction of civilian life disgusting? Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Russian Prime Minister whether his Government are prepared to meet representatives of the Chechnyan people who are now expressing a view that there can be no peace while there is no independence in that part of the world? What is the British Government's attitude towards that?

Mr. Hurd: I have certainly made it clear in private and in public to the Russians that the House and the British people have been appalled and depressed by the brutality of Russian action in Chechnya. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, one of the difficulties is to know who are valid representatives of the Chechnyans.


We do not think that Mr. Dudaev and his regime are, but one of the difficulties is precisely to identify who could speak representatively for the Chechnyans.

Middle East

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process.

Mr. Hurd: We are concerned by the slow progress, in particular on the Palestinian track. During his forthcoming visit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will urge all the parties to carry out what has been agreed and to renew their efforts to reach a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement.

Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Syrians providing a safe haven for the Damascus Ten terrorist group is completely at variance with their stated commitment to reaching a peaceful solution and accommodation with Israel? Will he tell the House and the Israeli Government what we arc doing to put pressure on the Syrian Government?

Mr. Hurd: We are making two things clear to the Syrians, and to all concerned, in that respect. The first is the one to which my hon. Friend refers. The Palestinian part of the peace process cannot succeed if Hamas and those who encourage Hamas manage to disrupt it by violence. Secondly, on the Syrian track itself—the discussions between Syria and Israel—progress at the moment is invisible.

Mr. Gerrard: Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Prime Minister to raise with the Israeli Government the continued harassment of Lebanese fishermen off Tyre and Sidon by Israeli gunboats, which is preventing them from earning any sort of living? That appears to he a response to the Lebanese army increasing security on the borders between the UN security zone and Lebanese-controlled territory. Such action is likely to do considerable harm to the peace process.

Mr. Hurd: The House will understand the concerns of Israel about its security and the threats to its security from southern Lebanon. We have already urged the Israeli Government to cease their blockade of the Lebanese fishing ports.

Denmark

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Denmark to discuss bilateral relations.

Mr. Hurd: I visited Denmark on 7 and 8 February. I met the Danish Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is there any common ground between our two countries on cohesion funding, budgetary discipline and fraud within the common agricultural policy? If so, will that help us to win the arguments in the approach to the intergovernmental conference?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. I found in both Denmark and Sweden—and, indeed, in Austria the day before yesterday—quite a wide welcome for some of our ideas

about the future course of Europe. The Danes and the Swedes have no intention of agreeing to centralising moves based on the assumption that the nation states will wither away. They are also very strong against fraud, for the same reasons that we are, and on budgetary discipline.

Mrs. Clwyd: Did the Secretary of State raise with the Danes and others our concerns about reports that the French Government are encouraging non-humanitarian commercial links with the cruel regime in Iraq? Given that Saddam Hussein continues to execute, torture and mutilate his own people, as confirmed by the United Nations rapporteur on human rights—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to Denmark. Is the hon. Lady coming back to the subject of our bilateral relations with Denmark?

Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am anxious to know whether the Secretary of State raised our concerns with Denmark and the other partners in the European Union, which he mentioned, about the business links that many countries are trying to establish once again with Iraq, in the light of the fact that at Geneva the Danes and other countries were very concerned about the UN rapporteur's report that Saddam Hussein continues to execute, torture and mutilate his own people. Will the Secretary of State unreservedly dissociate himself from those groups—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a total abuse. It does not relate at all to the question on the Order Paper. I have already cautioned the hon. Lady. The question must be more related to discussions and relations with Denmark. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is all over the world other than in Denmark. I really cannot allow that question to continue and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would find it impossible to give an answer to such a roundabout question.
I call Mr. George Foulkes to ask Question 8.

UN Fiftieth Anniversary

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the United Nations in New York to discuss plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to visit the United Nations to discuss plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister as fed up as I am at right wingers such as Rosemary Righter of The Times using the 50th anniversary to rubbish the United Nations? Will the Government support the idea of a United Nations parliamentary assembly to bring some democratic accountability and scrutiny unto the United Nations system so that the agencies and the UN can be looked at by parliamentary representatives?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly deprecate efforts to rubbish the United Nations, although I am bound to say that I am not particularly troubled by the writings of the journalist to


whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I did not find the hon. Gentleman's particular suggestion very constructive and I would not support it.

Mr. Jopling: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the United States ambassador to the United Nations, will he make clear the House's concern about proposals in the US Congress to reduce contributions to the United Nations, which would have a disastrous effect on peacekeeping around the world?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The fact that the United States Congress proposes to put a cap on the peacekeeping contributions by the United States of 25 per cent. is unwelcome and I would hope that it might be possible to persuade Congress to take a different view.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister knows, the cap to which he has referred takes effect on 1 October and is now part of the domestic legislation of the United States. Clearly much work must be done to persuade the members of the more Republican-dominated Congress that any further reduction would be substantially against the best interests of the United Nations and, indeed, those of the United States. May we assume that the Foreign Secretary will take the earliest opportunity to make those points—not to the American ambassador here in London, but to people on Capitol hill?

Mr. Hogg: I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern. The attitude of Congress towards peacekeeping is a matter of considerable anxiety to us all. Naturally, our ability to persuade the members of another legislature to change their minds is limited, but we shall try to find ways of expressing our anxiety about the approach to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.

Mr. Lester: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs conducted a serious study of the future of the United Nations, and as we travel around the world we find that the Canadians, Americans and Australians—and other countries and their Parliaments—have done the same. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider setting up a conference—something short of a parliamentary assembly—enabling parliamentarians who produce serious reports about the future of the United Nations to meet and discover what common ground can be used to ensure the survival and better use of the United Nations in the next 50 years?

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that I want to promote a large number of additional conferences, but my hon. Friend—and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—made an important point in stressing the need to reinforce the basic propositions that the United Nations contributes to peace and stability in the world, that it will do so increasingly, and that the Security Council is working constructively and as it was intended to do for the first time since its foundation.

Mr. Cousins: I am sure that the whole House is thinking today of the Pakistani troops being withdrawn from Somalia. I echo what the Minister has said about peacekeeping, but will he acknowledge that there is now a real crisis in UN peacekeeping in Somalia, Angola, Burundi and Yugoslavia, with costs and material requirements rising five and sevenfold?
Will the Minister assure us that—Prime Minister to President—the House's view will be made clear that the dangerous right-wing UNO-sceptics in the American Congress who are imposing this limit on peacekeeping provision must not be allowed to prevail?

Mr. Hogg: As I have said, I consider the cap to be extremely unwelcome. I also believe that the United Nations has a major contribution to make to world peace and tranquility through peacekeeping, among other policy measures.
I do not believe that there is a crisis in peacekeeping of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I see a fundamental difficulty, however, which I think will remain a difficulty for as far ahead as we can see. I refer to the unwillingness of member states—with which I have some sympathy—to put national troops into the front line when the nation in question has no direct interest in what is going on in the country experiencing civil strife. That is an inevitable fact of life of which account must be taken.

Mr. Fabricant: May I suggest that, instead of travelling 5,000 miles to New York to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, my right hon. and learned Friend should travel just 400 yards? Is he aware that the UN's first meeting was held in the Methodist central hall right here in London?

Mr. Hogg: Indeed I am, and perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind you, Madam Speaker, of the invitation for 26 June, which I know that you will accept.

Social Development Summit

Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department is making in preparation for the world summit on social development in Copenhagen in March; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): With colleagues from other Departments, we have attended the four preparatory meetings held in New York over the past year.
The Government are committed to achieving a successful summit. Our principal priority is to improve the focus of the international debate about the issues of development.

Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept, however, that a number of charities—including Oxfam—believe that the Government are not taking the summit seriously enough? In view of the Rowntree report on the growing inequality in Britain, should the Government not use the summit to address the inequalities in this country as well as others?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady has made two bad points. First, in answer to her point about Oxfam, we have a substantial aid budget—some £2.2 billion—which we put to very good use throughout the world. Poverty is also a bad point for the hon. Lady to raise as average incomes in the United Kingdom have risen by more than a third since we came to office. Average incomes are up for all family types. The less well-off have enjoyed a rise in the


possession of consumer durables, and vulnerable groups have been much better protected. The hon. Lady will have to find much better points.

Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend goes to the summit, will he remind it that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, that minimum wage legislation destroys jobs and that youth unemployment in this country is much lower than in Spain, which has a minimum wage?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes extremely good points. There has been much misinformation about the nature of the summit and some mischief making in seeking to confuse its purposes with those of the EU social chapter. They have nothing whatever to do with each other. The summit is about improving development throughout the world.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware that the social summit will be attended by the Heads of Government of all the G7 countries except America, which is sending its Vice-President, and by the Heads of Government from all of Europe from Poland to Portugal except Greece, which is sending three Cabinet Ministers? Why are the British Government not sending the Prime Minister or even one Cabinet Minister? Does that not demonstrate the utter indifference of the Conservative party to fighting poverty at home or abroad?

Mr. Baldry: We shall be sending my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, who stands equal to anyone in the world with her knowledge of social development and overseas aid issues.

European Union

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the French Foreign Minister to discuss the future of the European Union.

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his French counterpart to discuss matters on the EU presidency agenda.

Mr. Hurd: I meet my French colleague regularly at the Foreign Affairs Council.

Mr. Dunnachie: Will the Foreign Secretary state whether the Government's policy is to veto proposals which would significantly change the British Commonwealth's relationship with the European Union? Is it their policy to veto proposals which would make any change in that relationship?

Mr. Hurd: I think that on the whole British Commonwealth countries have benefited from the links between this country and the rest of Europe. If the hon. Gentleman has specific points in mind, no doubt he will let me know.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be much value in getting national Parliaments and the European Parliament working together, a subject

about which I believe that the French presidency is enthusiastic? Will he raise that subject at forthcoming meetings if there is time?

Mr. Hurd: We must try to make some progress on this. The difficulty is that it is not for Governments to decide. It is essentially for national Parliaments to decide how and whether they wish to come together to ensure that they play a democratic part together in monitoring what happens in Europe. The House has no difficulty in chivvying and making life difficult for Ministers when it feels the urge. I think that it is generally felt that national Parliaments as a whole should exert a greater influence over what goes on.

Mr. Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary impress on the French Government his strong commitment, unlike some of his colleagues, to continuing integration in Europe? Will he emphasise that this country will soon have a change of Government which will mean that integration will continue at a faster pace?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know—and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows—what is meant by "continuing integration". We believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will shortly expound authoritatively, in a Europe of nations working more effectively together than they have ever done in history. I doubt whether we shall get similar light from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to discuss with the French Foreign Minister the French Government's decision to expel five American citizens from France on the ground that they were spying for the Central Intelligence Agency? What lessons does that teach us about the prospects for a common European security policy'?

Mr. Hurd: No. I think I had better keep my nose out of that matter. I do not think that it has any implications for our work together on foreign policy.

Mr. Robin Cook: While the Foreign Secretary was considering the future of the European Union, did he have time to see the appeal from the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) to the Whipless Conservatives, urging them to acknowledge the gains they have made on Government policy towards the European Union and to rejoin the fold? In order that those rebels and the whole House may be clear what policy gains they have achieved from the Government, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks they are?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is almost as had as his hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who collapsed so singularly when she asked a question earlier in our proceedings. The exchanges between my hon. Friends are fascinating, but not matters that I would dream of discussing with the French Foreign Minister.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that with the first round of the French presidential elections coming up on 23 April, there is a great deal to be said for our Government having a clear and decisive policy on the single currency, so that when the French realise that the British are not going to accept a single currency, the French electorate, as compared with the French elite, can


respond accordingly? We would then have a real opportunity to renegotiate that hopeless failure, the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Hurd: I know that my hon. Friend has close contacts with some aspects of French political life, but his comments are astray. I had a fascinating conversation with Mr. Pasqua this morning and he confirmed that he does not think that European issues will be dominant in the French presidential election.

Israel

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Israeli relations.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our relations with Israel are excellent.

Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that British-Israeli relations, good though they are, will be improved on every occasion that the British Government can do something concrete to assist the peace process? As I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree about that, will he give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the request from the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan for a 50 per cent. reduction in its debts to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hogg: On the question of our bilateral relations, upon which the hon. Lady concentrated, when Prime Minister Rabin met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year, he commented that Anglo-Israeli relations had never been better. As to the question of making concrete contributions, we have made many such, for example, we are spending around £75 million over three years in support of the peace process and Palestinians.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: When the British Prime Minister goes to Israel, will he take the opportunity to build on those cordial relations with that country and totally condemn the 10 per cent. increase in settlements on the west bank and close to Jerusalem, which endanger the peace process and which give great support to Hamas and all it is trying to do to undermine Chairman Arafat and the peace process?

Mr. Hogg: As we have often made plain to the Israeli Government, we regard the settlement policy as an obstacle to peace and we would like to see it stopped.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards a post-legislative referendum on the outcome of the next intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Davis: We do not exclude the use of referendums for decisions of major constitutional significance, but we do not expect the outcome of next year's intergovernmental conference to involve such decisions.

Mr. Kennedy: That is very interesting. Can the Minister clarify that a little more, because the Prime Minister was somewhat more explicit in his famous Frost interview at the beginning of the year, when he said quite

clearly that if issues of constitutional import arose, he would not hesitate to use the British veto? Is that the Government's position in the run-up to the IGC? If so, why are so many people in the Tory party suggesting, not least via the airwaves today, that we will have a referendum?

Mr. Davis: The Prime Minister put exactly the position of the British Government. The hon. Gentleman has it right.

Sir Terence Higgins: The question referred to a post-legislative referendum; does my hon. Friend know what that is? In any case, is not it just as bad as a pre-legislative one?

Mr. Davis: A post-legislative referendum would he called only in the event of major constitutional change. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that such an occurrence would not arise after the IGC.

Ms Quin: Did the Minister agree with the Prime Minister when he said that he was not in favour of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy and did not propose to put one before the people; or did he agree with the same Prime Minister when he said that, if the circumstances were appropriate, he would hold a referendum? With which of the Prime Minister's two opposing views does the Minister agree?

Hon. Members: Just say yes.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Lady makes a semantic point. It is extraordinary because, last Friday, during the debate on a referendum, she said that she thought the opt-outs were foolish. One of the options open to the Government arises solely because of those opt-outs, so she cannot give anyone lessons in semantics.

British Council

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the British Council.

Mr. Baldry: The British Council, with its worldwide presence and high reputation, has greatly enhanced our international standing and influence; done much to promote the worldwide acceptance abroad of British standards, services and goods in culture, education and science; helped to promote sustainable development in poor countries; worked with much success to improve the spread and standard of English taught overseas; and added greatly to the perception of Britain as a vibrant, cultured, innovative and liberal society.

Mr. Fishburn: Is not one of the great assets that we have as a country the English language, and is not the British Council to be congratulated on the way in which it teaches it around the world efficiently and, more to the point, profitably?

Mr. Baldry: Yes. The achievements of the British Council in this regard were best summed up in a recent leader in The Times, which stated:
The British Council can claim … to be probably the most effective pump-priming cultural organisation in the world … it has both boosted the demand for English language teaching and satisfied it. That industry is now worth some £500 million a year to Britain".


In fact, the British Council has 75 teaching centres in 39 countries and teaches 100,000 students a year at no cost to the taxpayer. That is a very significant achievement.

Mr. Janner: Sharing as I do the Minister's view, will he tell the House what he is proposing to do to enable the British Council to continue its work and improve its functions because the council is very worried that the Government will cut its money further and prevent it from doing the job that the Minister praises?

Mr. Baldry: The council has no basis for such a belief. Funding to the British Council has risen by about 30 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. In addition to the substantial increase in Government funding to the British Council, I am glad to say that the council is no longer dependent only on the grant in aid, which now amounts to just half its income. The British Council is much to be congratulated on the increased range of its activities which serve our national interests without additional cost to the taxpayer. I am thinking of things such as English language teaching, the organisation of examinations and the management of aid projects and scholarship. schemes. The British Council is an excellent example to many other bodies in the United Kingdom of what can be achieved in this regard.

Pakistan

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on British relations with Pakistan.

Mr. Baldry: We have good relations with Pakistan. We look forward to deepening and extending our political, commercial and cultural contacts.

Mr. Couchman: Will my hon. Friend impress on the high commissioner for Pakistan when next they meet, the grave concern felt by hon. Members of all parties at the persecution of Christians in Pakistan? Will he tell the high commissioner that to contemplate putting to death a child on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy is the sign of an uncivilised country? Finally, will he contrast the treatment of Christians in Pakistan with the treatment in this country of Christians from Pakistan such as the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, who was recently welcomed to north Kent as our diocesan bishop of Rochester?

Mr. Baldry: The whole House shares my hon. Friend's concerns and will have welcomed the judgment by the High Court of Pakistan which overturned the verdict to which he referred. We have regularly urged the Government of Pakistan to protect minorities against discrimination and intimidation. The rights of minorities are legally protected under Pakistan's constitution but there is real concern about the significant increases in sectarian violence and extremism in the past year, not only against non-Muslims, such as Christian groups, but between different Islamic sects, as we have witnessed recently. These are matters of concern that we continue to raise, although it is fair to observe that the Prime Minister of Pakistan has publicly reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to improve the situation.

Mr. Watson: When the Minister next meets the high commissioner in Pakistan, will he raise the question of Kashmir, not only the part occupied by India, Jammu Kashmir, but Azad Kashmir? Will he remind the. high

commissioner of the various United Nations resolutions, which call for a referendum to allow the people of Kashmir to have a say in their future? Will he insist that that referendum includes a third option for an independent Kashmir?

Mr. Baldry: Our position on Kashmir is well known and well established. We believe that the best way forward in Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on discussions between India and Pakistan, as provided for under the Simla agreement of 1972. There must be improvement in human rights in Kashmir, a genuine political process and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.

Mr. Waller: While stressing the need to stand up against the persecution of minorities in Pakistan, will my hon. Friend emphasise his support for the stance of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in resisting those among the Islamic extreme minorities, who have persecuted Christians very much in contrast with the essential message of Islam, which is perhaps more conciliatory in reality towards other religions than any other faith?

Mr. Baldry: It is right to remind ourselves that any persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan is the work of individuals; it is not the work of the Government. We continue to provide a substantial aid programme in support of Pakistan because poverty is a contributory factor in the rise of sectarianism and religious extremism. We believe that if we can help Pakistan continue to promote literacy and its economy, those factors will help combat the problems of sectarianism and intolerance in the longer term. Certainly this is not the time to turn our backs on Pakistan.

Council of Europe

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the President or the Prime Minister of France to discuss the policy of that Administration to the partial travel arrangements now in place and their effect on members of those EC states which are members of the Council of Europe.

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend has no current or immediate plans to meet either Mr. Mitterrand or Mr. Balladur.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that, in October, the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe agreed to investigate travel arrangements and that, since then, it has been established that the travel concessions for Members of the European Parliament are in place as a result of an instruction from the French Government? That hardly represents an acceptable situation since the taxpayers of member states have to pay twice as much as Members of the European Parliament when travelling to Strasbourg on official business.

Mr. Davis: I am well aware of the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman. I understand that my noble Friend Lord Finsberg raised it at the February plenary session. The chairman of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has undertaken to pursue the matter with the French authorities and I am perfectly willing and happy to take the matter up with my opposite number when I see him.

Overseas Posts

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to create new posts overseas and to reinforce United Kingdom commercial efforts abroad.

Mr. Hurd: With the help of efficiency savings and reductions in work of lower priority, I am planning a significant strengthening of the FCO's support for British overseas interests. This will involve more than 100 new commercial staff abroad and the creation of 14 new posts in the former Soviet Union and in emerging markets in Asia and Latin America. These comprise four new embassies, three new consulates and seven new trade offices with locally engaged staff. The reductions that I mentioned include the replacement of three consuls in Italy by honorary consuls and completion of the programme begun in 1994 to abolish more than 500 support staff over three years. Full details of these changes are being placed in the Library of the House.

Mrs. Lait: I thank my right hon. Friend. for that statement, most of which will be of great interest to our exporters. Will he confirm that the staff who will be in place to help our exporters will be highly trained and experienced in commercial work and that there will be close co-ordination between our export promotion in this country and that in other countries?

Mr. Hurd: That is exactly the point. The announcement that I have made means an increase of more than 9 per cent. in front-line commercial staff to match the increased activity of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and all those under his command, to stimulate exports from home. We are in an export-led recovery. Our embassies, consulates and trade offices can help to stimulate and sustain that recovery. What I have announced today is a redirection of our overseas effort to enable them to do that.

Mr. Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary does support, does he not, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his recent support for the British trade delegation to Baghdad?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that it was a British trade delegation. It was a number of people going to see how the land lay. They did not go there on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in any way.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer is very welcome indeed? Does he accept also that an increase in commercial representation abroad can be justified in its own right and that it does not have to be funded out of efficiency savings, as he put it, because staff can earn very much more than the cost of their salaries and overheads overseas? Will he take on board the fact that it is important that posts be extended, rather than staff being moved away, when staff are in the middle of a successful commercial posting?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with both my hon. Friend's points. On his second point, I am against moving people around too fast. There has been rather too much of that in recent years. My hon. Friend's first point is an argument that I have used with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but not always successfully; perhaps my hon. Friend will help me.

European Union

Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the German Foreign Minister to discuss future developments in the European Union.

Mr. Hurd: Next Monday, 6 March.

Sir David Madel: In all the diplomatic and other contacts that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has with the German Government, has my right hon. Friend noticed that they have any less enthusiasm for and optimism about the possibility of a single currency this century?

Mr. Hurd: In recent weeks, German Ministers have emphasised that their support, which is undoubted, for a single bank and a single currency must not be taken to imply any support for a weakening of anti-inflation policy in Germany or any weakening of the criteria on convergence in the treaty. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has already pointed out, they are powerfully supported in that view by the president of the Bundesbank, who said that, regardless of timing, the strict application of the criteria is essential. That has many implications for the timetable laid out in the treaty.

Mr. Pike: When the Foreign Secretary meets the German Foreign Minister, will he discuss with him how Germany sees the reform of the common agricultural policy to allow widening of the European Union to admit countries such as Romania in the years ahead?

Mr. Hurd: I tried to stimulate a little German discussion on that matter when I spoke on it in Berlin yesterday. I made the point that—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree—it is not possible to imagine extending the common agricultural policy in its present form to cover the farmers of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others. We in the existing 15 have to work to reform and change the policy substantially before we can consider enlargement.

China

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Beijing to discuss Anglo-Chinese relations.

Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present to visit China.

Mr. Key: When my right hon. Friend meets the Chinese ambassador later today, will he tell him that there is growing interest in this country in trade relations with China, and that we should move as quickly as possible to reduce and remove cultural, industrial and economic barriers to such trade?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes, I shall say that. As my hon. Friend will know, we have experienced an enormous increase in our trade with China. We are the largest European investor in China; we have more than 600 joint ventures there. The trade delegation in September was the largest ever. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will go to China in May.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister promise that, when he makes his efforts to improve cultural and commercial relationships, he will not confine them to Anglo-Chinese


relationships but will extend them to Britannic-Chinese relationships? Many people who have great interest in the burgeoning economy and culture of China regard themselves not as English but as Irish, Scottish or. on this day of all others, Welsh.

Mr. Goodlad: I am delighted that the Scottish economy, the Northern Irish economy and indeed the Welsh economy have benefited from the great increase in British-Chinese trade. As someone who is not English either, I rejoice at those benefits and hope that they will continue.

Mr. Forman: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether any good came of the recent visit to China by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Mr. Goodlad: I very much hope that the mission to China by His Grace will increase tolerance for Christians in China and will have an overall beneficial effect on relations. [Interruption.] His Grace has indeed been there, and I hope that his visit will have had a beneficial effect on the lives of Christians in China.

Human Rights

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what methods his Department uses to monitor human rights in other states.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We gather information from a wide variety of sources in monitoring human rights in other countries. Our missions report on human rights and we share information and assessments with other Governments, in particular our European Union partners. Committees and experts from the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe produce many reports on human rights. We regularly receive reports and representations from non-governmental organisations.

Mr. Denham: But is the Minister aware that when right hon. and hon. Members write to raise human rights issues in the context of arms exports and other concerns, we frequently receive bland and uninformative responses, simply saying that the human rights situation is improving, or is acceptable, or is giving rise to concern? Those assurances are often at variance with what the non-governmental organisations in the countries concerned and organisations such as Amnesty International say. Is it not now time to bring proper openness and transparency into our assessment of human rights in other countries—for example, by formally inviting submissions from human rights organisations and others to the British Government, and making a formal response to the concerns raised therein?

Mr. Hogg: The Government's reputation for openness and transparency is well established. As regards the answers given by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, they are full and informative.

Sir Cranley Onslow: When the Government monitor human rights in Burma, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that nothing would do as much to restore democracy in that country as the release of Aung San Suu Kyi?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is entirely right.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Gary Waller.

Mr. Waller: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for his earlier reply to my question on Pakistan, and I shall forgo a second bite of the cherry.

European Union

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on possible future enlargement of the EU.

Mr. David Davis: Not everybody is allowed a second bite of the cherry, Madam Speaker. Further enlargement of the European Union is an essential element in the extension of security and prosperity to our east. We have also agreed that Malta and Cyprus will he involved in the next phase. That will all require institutional adjustments and policy reform both in the applicant countries and in the EU.

Mr. Winterton: I welcome my hon. Friend's response, but does he not accept that the accession of the Baltic states—Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia—to the European Union would be a most desirable step? Are we positively moving in that direction, and giving those three important countries the encouragement that they need?

Mr. Davis: The straight answer to my hon. Friend is yes. I believe that we shall discuss European association agreements with those countries in the near future, and that is the first step towards their eventually joining the European Union.

Mr. Cox: In view of what the Minister said about Cyprus, can he give the House any idea of the time span within which Cyprus, with its close association with this country, will be able to think that it will really be admitted to the Union?

Mr. Davis: As with all potential applicants to the Union, it is important first to meet the conditions for joining, both within the applicant country and within the Union. The latter will involve modifications to the constitution of the Union itself. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the current French presidency there is a major initiative to attempt to clear the way for Cyprus to join the Union. We are all watching that initiative for signs of success.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets with those nation states that wish to become a part of the European Union, will he take the opportunity to remind them of the experience of Germany and the United Kingdom of operating a single currency, which involved moving large sums of money from the wealthy areas to the poor areas while moving large numbers of people from the poor areas to the wealthy areas?

Mr. Davis: I am not aware that we have had any experience of a single currency.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister confirm that—as things stand at the moment—it would be contrary to the independence treaty between Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom which established the Republic of Cyprus for Cyprus to accede to the European Community?

Mr. Davis: The initiative being taken by the French presidency is an attempt to bring together the Turks,


Greeks and Cypriots to achieve Cyprus's entry to the European Union, and the initiative will deal with the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

"Partnership for Peace"

Sir Dudley Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing the NATO "Partnership for Peace" proposal; and what practical military co-operation has flowed from it so far.

Mr. David Davis: "Partnership for Peace" is developing very well. Twenty-five countries have become partners, many of which have already negotiated individual programmes of activities with NATO. Three PFP military exercises have taken place so far, with UK forces participating each time. An extensive range of practical co-operative activities, including 20 exercises, are scheduled for 1995. The United Kingdom hopes to participate in many of these.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the central European countries are carrying on apace where the "Partnership for Peace" is concerned, and that they are becoming closely involved in peacekeeping efforts? Will he and the Foreign Office continue to do everything that they can to encourage such activities?

Mr. Davis: Before I respond to my hon. Friend, may I take the opportunity to commend his activities in the Western European Union and other areas?
We are doing all we can to make "Partnership for Peace" productive, and to ensure that it gives a useful outcome to the countries involved.

Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister agree that it would be much more appropriate to develop the "Partnership for Peace" among eastern and central European countries than to develop NATO further in that direction, as the enlargement of NATO would undoubtedly cause much more unease inside Russia? Would not it be better to have Russia and the eastern European countries together in a European security pact?

Mr. Davis: While the hon. Gentleman has a point in saying that the matter must be treated with care, the "Partnership for Peace" process should enable the accession to NATO of those countries that wish to—that is the key point—at an appropriate point in the future.

Mr. Jenkin: Given our declared policy of giving primacy to NATO in the formulation of a European defence policy, why have we just agreed with France to joint command of air services outside the NATO command and control system? Does not that send the wrong signals to the Americans, who are already thinking about disengagement?

Mr. Davis: The agreement to which my hon. Friend refers was made at Chartres in November last year, and relates to items outside the article 5 issues of NATO.

Scholarships

Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the amounts raised from the private sector by his Department for jointly funded scholarships.

Mr. Baldry: The private sector has generously contributed some £14 million towards the FCO's jointly funded scholarship programme since it began in 1986. Thanks to these joint ventures we can now offer nearly 800 co-sponsored scholarships a year to overseas students on top of those fully funded by the FCO.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance to British industry of the scholarships is shown by the fact that it is prepared to contribute so substantially to them? Will he give the House his assessment of what effect the scholarships have had on the huge expansion of British exports during the past two or three years?

Mr. Baldry: The scholarships will have made a lot of friends for Britain because, in addition to the jointly funded scholarships, the Department for Education, the Department of Trade and Industry and the British Council are between them funding about 21,000 scholarships and training awards each year, at a cost of about £150 million. That provides large numbers of overseas students with invaluable training and education opportunities here, but it also provides Britain with friends for life and will often lead to commercial and business opportunities in years to come.

European Union

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if border controls will be one of the issues on the agenda of the next meeting of EU Foreign Ministers, which he will attend.

Mr. David Davis: The next Foreign Affairs Council meeting is on 6 to 7 March. Border controls are not on the agenda.

Mr. Riddick: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he and the Government will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Britain's border controls are retained into the indefinite future?

Mr. Davis: I can confirm that. My hon. Friend is virtually quoting the words of the Prime Minister. I take this opportunity to remind the House of something that was effectively said in public on 19 July 1994 by the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities, in paragraph 109 of its report on visas and the control of external borders of member states. The Committee was chaired by Lord Slynn, who was a member of the European Court. He said:
We have not however changed our opinion that the Single European Act does not impose a legal obligation on member states to abolish controls on people at internal Community borders.
That is an independent and highly authoritative view of the real position.

Sita Kamara

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I am grateful for your indulgence and that of the House in this matter, Madam Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending deportation of an Ivorian refugee, Sita Kamara.
It is one of the strengths of the House that, while there may appear to be many greater issues on the agenda, we can find time to discuss the rights of, and threats to, an individual. My immediate concern is for the safety and well-being of an 18-year-old woman who has been in detention for seven months. My second concern is the general issue of the treatment of people fleeing oppression, and my third concern is the position of asylum seekers from the Ivory Coast.
Sita Kamara sought refuge in this country from the Ivory Coast and was refused, along with 320 other applicants—all from the Ivory Coast—refused last year. At the age of 17, she was detained by the Home Secretary at the Group 4 detention centre at Campsfield. Last week, I visited Campsfield, where she had been on hunger strike for some weeks. I found her in a weak and emotionally stressed state, terrified of returning home and alleging ill treatment and sexual abuse on the part of the Ivorian authorities.
I raised questions with the Home Office Minister, who said that he intended to remove Sita. I raised my concerns about her physical and mental well-being and was assured by the Minister that she was fit to travel. The deportation did not take place the following day because of medical advice that, although she was fit to travel, she was fit to do so only with a medical escort, which could not be provided.
Sita was not deported the following day either. It was alleged that there was an attempt at suicide. The Minister disputes that it was attempted suicide, but whether it was suicide or parasuicide, that young 18-year-old attempted deliberate self-harm and I cannot believe that a young woman in her position would have done so had she not been in real fear for what would happen if she returned to the Ivory Coast.
None of the refugees from the Ivory Coast whose applications were considered last year has been granted asylum, despite reports by Amnesty International and the American State Department on abuses of human rights in that country.
I hope that the House will find time to debate the rights of Sita Kamara and the wider implications for others. I hope that we will have time to discover the depths to which this country appears to have sunk, as we are not prepared to grant shelter to a vulnerable young woman in such a position.

Madam Speaker: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. I must give my decision without stating my reason for so doing. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY

Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. Tim Eggar, presented a Bill to make provision for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to other persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

GAS

Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Gummer, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Redwood and Mr. Tim Eggar, presented a Bill to amend Parts I and III of the Gas Act 1986; to make provision for requiring the owners of certain gas processing facilities to make them available to other persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (WALES)

Mr. Barry Jones, supported by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Ray Powell, Dr. John Marek, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Alan W. Williams, Mr. Donald Anderson and Mr. David Hanson, presented a Bill to make it unlawful in Wales to discriminate against disabled persons in respect of employment and in other circumstances, and to establish a Disability Rights Commission for Wales; to make provision for access to polling stations and voting by disabled persons in Wales; to place certain duties on local authorities, education authorities and other bodies in Wales in relation to disabled persons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 March, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Government Paperwork Reduction and Electronic Information

Mr. David Shaw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a programme for the development of secure electronic information systems within Government, to reduce reliance on paperwork and hard copy files, and to ensure easier public access to certain information. I am grateful to the House for the considerable interest that it is showing in the Internet and the information super-highway. My Bill would increase the accessibility of central and local government; increase the openness of Government, in which great strides have already been made; improve and develop necessary security systems within Government; help people in terms of education, training and employment; reduce paperwork within Government; improve the efficiency of Government; and maintain the United Kingdom Parliament as the leading Parliament in Europe and the world.
My Bill is timely because technology has advanced during the past 10 years in a way that enables 'people to have on-line access to worldwide information in their homes. Some 3.3 million households in the United Kingdom have home computers but only a small proportion are on line. The current growth in the number of people with access to on-line information is I million a year.
Last weekend, a G7 conference took place in Brussels on the information super-highway. It was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, who admirably put the United Kingdom's position and, as a result, obtained for us an important role in developing a Government on-line system. We are now responsible for the worldwide development of Government on-line systems.
Last October, the UK Government also went on line with a World Wide Web server known as http:\\www.open.gov.uk. In the past four months, some half a million people have gained access to that server, which is under the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science. The Public Record Office is the most recent Government Department to provide information and has gone on line this week to join some 30 Departments and agencies of Government which are currently on line.
Three local government councils are on line, the most impressive being Conservative Brent council, which has published the Audit Commission information on its performance. One can find out how quickly Brent will reply to letters now that it is on line. The National Audit Office report published today also makes my Bill timely because it deals with information technology security in Government Departments. Public awareness of that matter is growing. The Internet is a worldwide network of telecommunications and communications access. It enables people, by direct or telephone access, to get on-line information. Many people around the world—some 30 million to 40 million—have access to it.
The World Wide Web, through which people can gain access to databases through the Internet, is a British invention. It was developed by British people at the CERN nuclear physics laboratory in Geneva. It has

enabled easy access to on-line databases. The only skill required by users is the ability to read a page and press a button on the computer.
One of the main reasons why I believe that my Bill is necessary is that it will result in the Government helping to create new opportunities for Britain and British business. The White house went on line recently, and started receiving 40,000 electronic mail letters a month. The President and his staff could not cope with American systems, so they employed a British company to develop British software to deal with the mail that the White house receives.
That British company, known as Kinesis, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). My hon. Friend is giving full support to that company in obtaining international contracts. It is a successful British entrepreneurial company, marketing world wide and showing the White house in America how British business works and how to make the White house work better.
I believe that there are other opportunities for British business as a result of the information super-highway. Software companies in Britain lead the world in many fields. Hardware companies and systems design opportunities offer tremendous opportunities for British business.
I shall now briefly outline the clauses of my Bill.
There will be an accountability clause, which will require all Ministers' offices to be capable of receiving and replying to letters from Members of Parliament by electronic mail within 12 months. All Government Departments will publish their annual reports and accounts on the Internet within 12 months. All Government Departments should set up systems to receive and reply to electronic mail from the public within two years. Local councils will be required to make their accounts, their Audit Commission information and the telephone numbers of their major staff available on the Internet, so that our constituents can speak to real human beings at the other end of the telephone.
The security of Government systems will be required to be improved, so that there cannot be unauthorised hacking and so that data protection can be ensured. One hopes that British companies will bid for new contracts, in which computer fire walls will be properly set up and methods to prevent external hacking will be implemented.
The Public Record Office should be responsible for taking and securing historic back-ups of data, and Government Departments should be required to implement other back-ups.
Education, training and employment are covered in a separate clause. We have Super-JANET, a world-beating computer network, developed in Britain by our universities as a result of the Government's support. I propose that schools training information should go on line, and my Bill will ensure that access to Super-JANET and university computer systems is available to United Kingdom primary and secondary school pupils. I also believe that training and skills opportunities might be developed as a result of the Internet and access to the Internet.
I pay tribute to schools in my constituency which are helping their students to go on line, and the Kent training and enterprise council, which is supporting that.
There will be clauses in my Bill to cover paperwork reduction, openness and efficiency of Government. Paper is slow and inefficient, and it requires large numbers of typists in Whitehall. It is time that we had type-your-own civil servants.
There are about 6 million files in Whitehall on paper. Whitehall is awash with millions of pieces of paper. We could speed up the processes of Government if Whitehall went electronic. I propose that many files should go electronic, and that more information in those files should he made available to the public.
Finally I propose that Parliament should go on line, that Members of Parliament should go on line, that we should all have electronic mail addresses within 12 months, that Hansard should be on line within 12 months, and that anyone in the world should be capable of reading what we say. Information about this Parliament, the mother of Parliaments, should be accessible to our constituents and to anyone in the world.
Yesterday evening I was able to dial into the House of Representatives from my home in London to see what Congressmen were saying. I believe that Parliament should be on line. Ours is the leading Parliament in the world, and we should maintain our lead by going on line. My Bill proposes just that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Shaw, Sir Wyn Roberts, Mr. John Butcher, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Nick Hawkins.

GOVERNMENT PAPERWORK REDUCTION AND ELECTRONIC INFORMATION

Mr. David Shaw accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a programme for the development of secure electronic information systems within Government, to reduce reliance on paperwork and hard copy files, and to ensure easier public access to certain information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to he read a Second time upon Friday 21 April, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOT-FED DAY]

European Union

Madam Speaker: I have two short announcements to make before we begin the debate. First, I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Secondly, so many Members want to participate in today's debate that I have put on a 10-minute limit from 7 o'clock; but I would hope that Members fortunate enough to be called before then will voluntarily limit their speeches. I want to hear as many voices as possible in this debate.

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move,
That this House does not support Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the European Union and does not believe it promotes the interests of the British people.
The case that we make today is that it is in Britain's interests to be fully at the heart of Europe. So far from pandering to Conservative Members who may take a different view, let me say at the outset that I intend to try to deal with their arguments head on. Let me also tell our Ulster colleagues that I support the Government's position on Northern Ireland and that that support will not change. The crux of this debate, therefore, is not the parliamentary arithmetic but the policy towards Europe.
At each stage I shall set out the Labour party's position, and I shall then ask the Prime Minister to clarify the Government's. Let us dismiss straight away, however, the bogey of some federal united states of Europe. The choice is not between a federal and a non-federal Europe. The true choice is whether Britain's interests are best served by remaining at the heart of Europe, engaging constructively with further European co-operation; or by retreating to a different relationship altogether with the European Union. Both are logical and sustainable positions, but they imply quite different visions of Britain's future.
At one time the position of the Government was clear. It was the Prime Minister himself who said, just a short time ago:
It is absurd to believe that Great Britain would voluntarily separate itself from the mainstream of European development … Great Britain stands at the centre of Europe and will remain as such.
Indeed, at an earlier stage he even said:
There is no more important issue facing the European Community than the path we choose towards economic and monetary union. We are all committed to this goal. That is no longer news.
Of course the right hon. Gentleman was right to want to be at the centre of Europe. Europe and NATO have given Britain and Europe peace. The single market, now combined with a proper social dimension, offers huge opportunities to British business. British businesses such as ICI, British Steel and British Telecom can only gain if competition rules are enforced across Europe. The European Union acts as a powerful magnet to inward investment. And British people—we support this—have been given rights: decent health and safety, equality for women, fair treatment for part-time workers. In our view at least they would gain more were we to join other Governments, Labour and Conservative, in the European social chapter.
Britain has enhanced its voice in the world through Europe, especially in trade. It offers, therefore, a range of chances across a range of areas, from research to the environment to technology and infrastructure, to act and co-operate where the nation state is insufficient.
The question is: do the Government still believe that we should be at the centre of Europe in future co-operation, or has their position changed? That is the question in the debate.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the Leader of the Opposition clarify one point? In recent years, the party that he leads has changed its mind five or six times on its attitude to Europe, and in his time in the House he has himself changed his attitude to Europe several times. How can Europe or Britain take the Labour party seriously on the matter of Europe?

Mr. Blair: For those who do not know it, this is all set out in the Conservative research department brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer it. I would prefer to be leading a party that was anti-European and is now pro-European than leading a party that was pro-European and is becoming anti-European.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment not just on his party's position but on his own position and the views that he put forward in his election address in 1982 and 1983, when he actually stated that the EEC removed Britain's freedom to pursue its own economic policies? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that reflected his own view and, if it did not, why could he not have pursued the course taken by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who made no mention of the European Community in his election address?

Mr. Blair: I can think of no one worse to level the charge of inconsistency than the right hon. Gentleman, who took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism and the Maastricht treaty. With all due respect, he is the one who has to explain the changes—[Interruption.]
I was asking whether—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. That includes the Government Whips.

Mr. Blair: I was asking whether it was the case that the Government's position of being at the centre of European co-operation has effectively changed. I think that it has and, with gathering force, the centre of gravity in the Conservative party is shifting and shifting fast.
Just consider it. The nine Whipless Tory Euro-rebels publish a separate manifesto calling, in effect, for withdrawal from the European Union. What was remarkable was not that document but the reaction to it. Almost immediately the Chief Secretary took to the airwaves to say that there was much common ground between the rebels and the Government. Not one single Minister condemned it.
Indeed, at times over the past few weeks, the Euro-rebels have appeared to be almost like some alternative Cabinet. Perhaps in time they will be. Perhaps the fate that awaits the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is to become the Foreign Secretary in a future Portillo Government, or the hon.

Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is to become the Chancellor in a future Government. At least, I suppose, that would mean that the top two economic spokesmen in the Government agreed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: Later.
The former Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we should contemplate withdrawal from the European Union. A former vice-chairman of the Tory party says that he wishes that we had never joined. Daily, there are fresh converts to that cause, most noticeably recently the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). On Monday, another sceptic document was published. It was rewarded with a Prime Ministerial foreword no less, praising it as a lively contribution to the debate. The only people, apparently, who cannot debate Europe, are the Cabinet who have responsibility for it.
Lord Tebbit, Baroness Thatcher: their views are well known. I thought it most interesting that, at the Tory youth conference a couple of weeks ago, when the row was at its very height, not a single Minister was called to defend the pro-Europe position—not one. The Home Secretary went. What did he do? He pandered to them. There was no defence of the Union, no explanation of its benefits. One can tell a lot about a party from the buttons that the politicians press for applause.
There remains, of course, a group of pro-Europeans, but they are increasingly beleaguered. Indeed, Lord Tebbit, when asked whether the nine Tory rebels were not damaging the party, said, "There are nine MPs damaging the party, but unfortunately they are all in the Cabinet." [Interruption.] They may wear the badge with pride, let us say.
The result of all that, at best, is immobility in policy, and, at worst, retreat. That is most clear over the single currency, to which I shall now come.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman really seeking to persuade the House that he, surrounded by the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), leads a united party on Europe?

Mr. Blair: In my speech I shall deal specifically with the issues of division in both parties. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman what the difference is: my position is clear. Is the Prime Minister's?
That is most clear over the issue of the single currency. Let us remind ourselves: at the beginning of February, the Chancellor was calling for an open, sensible debate about the single currency and its merits. Is that not right? Within two weeks, such was the disarray that the entire Cabinet was asked to undertake some Trappist vow of silence. We are therefore in the extraordinary position that Ministers, including the chief economic spokesman of the Government of Britain, cannot speak on a vital issue of national importance.
Indeed, let me draw attention to the Secretary of State for Employment, who, the day after the injunction not to speak, attended a Rotary club lunch at the Marriott hotel. I read from The Times:
Mr. Portillo toned down his usual Euro-scepticism so much and refused to comment on so many points, that guests were forced into asking him questions about the food they were eating.

Dr. John Cunningham: They probably got better answers.

Mr. Blair: As my right hon. Friend says, they probably got better answers.
These issues do not demand to be suppressed. They demand to be answered and the principles governing them resolved.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blair: I have taken some interventions from one wing of the Conservative party. It is only fair to take one from the other.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out, there are divisions on both sides of the House, as we well know. He accepts that the issue is important. He must also accept that people have changed their minds. Is the right answer, when we are very near the edge, simply to seek the views of the people of Britain as to which way they want to go? In a democracy, is not that the right way to go ahead, instead of throwing things across from one party to another?

Mr. Blair: I am coming to the referendum issue. I have already said that, if progress is made towards the establishment of a single currency, it must be made with popular consent, whether that consent is established by a referendum or by other means. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that a referendum will not ultimately absolve the person concerned of the need to decide what his position is. A referendum is a means of obtaining popular consent; it is not a substitute for government.
The single currency raises three sets of issues—economic, political and constitutional. Let us take them in turn. In the context of the economic conditions, it is correct to say that if there were monetary union without real economic convergence, a single currency would be bad. If economies were locked together when they differed widely in strength and performance, unemployment in the weaker ones might result. If there were real convergence, however, a single currency could have benefits. That is the Labour party's position—and, indeed, following his recent speech, it seems that it is effectively the Chancellor's position.
The political question concerns the issue of popular consent. Again, some agreement is possible in that regard.
The key question, however, is constitutional. Is a single currency, as a matter of principle, inconsistent with our identity as a nation state? Does it imply a federal Europe? Is there, therefore, a constitutional barrier? If there is, we should not join, even if the economic conditions are right.
On that issue, many Cabinet Ministers have expressed a concluded view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says:
It is quite possible to have monetary union without political union.
and again, in The Daily Telegraph, that a single currency is not

a threat to the nation state.
A few years ago, the President of the Board of Trade wrote:
No truly unified market can exist without a single currency. A close association of monetary policies will be needed if the single market itself is not to be put at risk.
Those two views are quite clear. So is the view of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said a few weeks ago:
I don't want to see a single currency, period, for as far as I: can possibly foresee. I would hesitate for an eternity before I came out and said I would vote for a single currency.
When asked whether he wanted a single currency, the Secretary of State for Employment replied, "No." He said:
A single currency is a long way towards political union. No British Government can give up the government of the UK. That is impossible.
That could not be plainer either. No one would dispute, surely, that those views are diametrically opposed.

Mr. Nigel Forman: rose—

Sir Peter Hordern: rose—

Mr. Blair: I will give way in a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your view?"] I am about to say what our views are. There is no sensible halfway house, because although the economic issues may vary, the constitutional issue is clear as a matter of principle. It does not alter over time. The question is, given that Cabinet Ministers have expressed concluded views on the constitutional issue—although they differ—which of the two opposing views is the Government's? That is what we need to know from the Prime Minister today.
I will put five questions to the Prime Minister. What is more, at the conclusion of each question I shall answer it and then ask the Prime Minister to answer it. I cannot put it more fairly than that. First, does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that a single currency is not a threat to the nation state? I say that his Chancellor is right; I assume that he says the same. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] He cannot say.
Let me put this question to the Prime Minister. Does he agree with his Employment Secretary that having a single currency is a long way to political union, and would mean giving up the government of the United Kingdom? May we have an answer to that? I say that the Employment Secretary is wrong; what does the Prime Minister say? Thirdly—this is a question that he must surely be able to answer—

Mr. Lamont: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) appears not to be giving way; is that correct? In that case, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) must resume his seat.

Mr. Blair: I shall conclude this passage and then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Prime Minister has been unable to agree with either of those two Cabinet Ministers. If he is re-elected, can the Prime Minister say whether a single currency will be a possibility in the next Parliament, assuming that the economic conditions are right? It must logically follow from signing the Maastricht treaty that the answer to that


question is yes. But what is the Prime Minister's answer? Is it a possibility or not? He cannot say. Let me put another question. [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will give way later. Hon. Members should not persist.

Mr. Blair: Conservative Members say that this is not a quiz, but it is precisely to hold the Prime Minister to account that we called this debate. Anyone would think that I was asking the Prime Minister to do something quite extraordinary. I am merely asking him to agree with his Chancellor. We have a situation, do we not, where I as the Leader of the Opposition can agree with his Chancellor, but he cannot get up and agree with him.
The fourth question is that if the economic conditions were right, would the Prime Minister be in favour of persuading the country that it was right to join a single currency? He must be able to answer that.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Would you?

Mr. Blair: I say yes to that. Is the Prime Minister able to answer the question? With all due respect, that is the position of his Chancellor. That is what the Chancellor said in his speech a couple of weeks ago.
Finally, let me ask the Prime Minister whether he can agree with this statement:
Some observers hope—and others fear—that economic and monetary union as set out in the Maastricht Treaty will be a step in the direction of a federal Europe … I believe that such hopes or fears are unrealistic.
Can the Prime Minister agree with that? I can; can he? Shall I tell the House the author of that statement? It was the Prime Minister. That is the position to which he has reduced the Government. I find it odd that he cannot agree with his Chancellor, I find it strange that he cannot agree with his Secretary of State for Employment and I find it unbelievable that he cannot agree with himself.
The Prime Minister says that he cannot decide this constitutional issue now. But the point is that he decided it then. He was prepared to say expressly that it was not a step to a federal Europe. Now, of course, he cannot say. The truth is that this issue of constitutional principle is being postponed not because of circumstances that the Cabinet cannot foresee. The issue as a matter of principle is there: it is being postponed because the Cabinet cannot agree on it. Members of the Cabinet do not have open minds on the issue. They are not sitting round the Cabinet table wondering about the answer. They have the answer: it is just that there are two different answers for the different factions in the Cabinet.

Sir Peter Hordern: If the Maastricht criteria were met in full, would the right hon. Gentleman sign up to a single currency?

Mr. Blair: If the economic conditions are satisfied, the economic conditions that we have set out for real economic convergence; and if people can be persuaded on the necessary political consent—those are the two conditions—then I say yes. I also say that there is no constitutional barrier to joining. The question is whether

that is the position of the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister speaks, perhaps the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) will put the same question to him and see whether he can get a straight answer.
On this point I totally agree with the former Chancellor. He said the other day, and I think that he is right, that the issue of constitutional principle can and should be decided now. If, in truth, there is a constitutional barrier, such a decision makes a dramatic difference to our future foreign and economic policy. Not merely does it render void—indeed, in some sense deceitful—our participation in all the formulation of the institutions for monetary union, but it means that the whole of our future relations with Europe, the United States and others would change. We should prepare for that change now. It would be appalling to drift into a decision that there was, in fact, an insuperable constitutional barrier, without thinking through the consequences of that.
Let me take that one step further.

Mr. Lamont: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No.
The Chancellor recently made a speech on the single currency, and spoke about its potential benefits.

Mr. Lamont: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House and he knows that when another Member will not give way, he should not persist. I must ask him to remain in his seat for a while until the right hon. Member for Sedgefield is prepared to give way.

Mr. Blair: If I have time, I shall give way in a moment.
Recently the Chancellor gave a speech about the potential benefits of the single currency. Could the Secretary of State for Employment make such a speech? Would he make such a speech? Of course not. Has he made such a speech? Of course not. Have the Chief Secretary, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Social Security or the Home Secretary made such a speech? They are not people postponing the decision on a single currency; they are merely postponing the fight over which side wins. That is not in the interests of Britain.
Think for a moment that the Government were re-elected. Can anyone imagine the negotiations during the next Parliament and the state of our discussions with other countries in the run-up to monetary union? It does not bear thinking about. One day, our European colleagues may meet the Chancellor; the next day, the Chief Secretary; the day after that, the Secretary of State for the Environment followed by the Secretary of State for Employment. They would need not more interpreters but more psychoanalysts.
Precisely the same problems beset our attitude to the intergovernmental conference. The Government are driven, once again, to raise the phantoms and bogeys of a federal Europe. In fact, there is little support for co-opting the intergovernmental pillar on defence, for example, into the treaty. There is support, of course, for extending the role of the Western European Union. The IGC needs to make progress on closer co-operation on foreign policy and defence. We have long urged that the role of the WEU should be reinforced as the defence component of the


European Union and as the European pillar of NATO. The WEU Heads of State and Government might meet at a WEU summit in parallel with the European Council. Those bodies could he strengthened. We do not favour a European army, but we can see a case for greater use of co-operation between European forces. That would be a modest but worthwhile step.
No one wants, or is suggesting that the Commission should run defence policy or that we should give up the national veto. There will, however, need to be change, primarily because of enlargement. A body of 20 members or even 15 is plainly different and requires a different form of decision making from a body of 12 or fewer.
The Prime Minister said on the Frost programme that he would oppose and not countenance any extension of qualified majority voting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note the cry from the troops behind him. With all due respect, such a stand is absolutely foolish and not in Britain's interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let me give hon. Members an example. On trade or the common agricultural policy, qualified majority voting is plainly in Britain's interests; we do not want small countries to be able to block change that is in our commercial interests. Sir Leon Brittan made that very point the other day. A sensible policy would be to approach such issues, piece by piece, on their merits.
Perhaps most absurd of all was the attack launched on me the other day in an early-day motion signed by 100 Tory Members. They launched it because I am in agreement, on some issues, with Mr. Santer, the European Union President. Who is responsible for Mr. Santer? [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am, apparently. Next time, we may be responsible for the appointment of that President, but the Prime Minister was responsible this time. And why? For all the usual reasons. Mr. Dehaene was proposed, but he was then pilloried as someone who would impose a united states of Europe upon us. The Government panicked and opposed him. Mr. Santer stepped forward and was sold to us on the basis that he was something completely different. Literally within 48 hours, he was saying that his views were indistinguishable from those of Mr. Dehaene.
Is it any surprise that in those circumstances our credibility in Europe is close to zero, or our influence minimal? A Danish diplomat was apparently recently quoted as saying:
When we saw Hurd last time, he could hardly say anything.
Or, according to Geoffrey Howe—Lord Howe, I should say—writing in the Financial Times:
The ratchet effect of Euroscepticism now risks doing huge damage to British interests. For too many months, the debate on Europe within the Conservative party has been shifting destructively in the direction of disengagement and isolation.
That is the view from all around.
Of course, there are differences over Europe in every party. In a sense, it would be a poor reflection on our democracy if there were not because these are questions of fundamental importance. It is right that politicians do not treat them lightly or regard them merely as matters of party, but the view of the Government must be clear. There may and will be debate as to what the policy should be, but there must be a policy. There is only one choice—to be at the heart of Europe or to be in retreat from it. Both are coherent positions, but they take the country in different directions. What is unacceptable is to have no direction at all.
In truth, the Government can have unity without clarity or clarity without unity, but they cannot any longer have both. Now is the time to decide. This decision is too vital to be pushed aside. In that I agree with the Thatcherites and the sceptics. The danger is that their view of Britain in Europe will prevail if it is not challenged. I challenge it, and I challenge it at its fundamental point.
Recently, in a robust assertion, the Employment Secretary talked of what he called the defeatism of those who saw Britain's future as lying in closer co-operation in Europe. I say that, on the contrary, what is defeatist is to believe that Britain's identity is so fragile, its character so weak and its will so unimpressive that we cannot co-operate in Europe without destroying ourselves as a nation. I reject that view, and I say that this country should be and can be a leader of nations in Europe. That is its destiny. It should be leading in Europe and it can lead in Europe, but only under a different Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House rejects the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition towards Europe, which would destroy United Kingdom jobs, erode the United Kingdom's competitiveness in world markets, place new bureaucratic burdens on business and industry, destroy the veto and diminish the role of Europe's nation states and their national parliaments.
In the 20-odd years since we joined the European Community, as it then was, our membership has always been controversial, so I welcome this debate to set out what our policy is, what the choices are and what those choices may mean for this country in the future.
None of those choices is easy, none of them is without risks and none is without opportunities, but the belief that those choices are simple, and the belief that those choices can be made without a detailed examination of all their implications for living standards in this country, is not something that I accept. I shall deal with those choices in detail when I come to the question of a single currency later in my speech, as I promise the House I shall most surely do.
Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have always been instinctively hostile to our membership of the European Union. Others are uncritical supporters of the European Union, but most of us in this House—I believe on both sides of the House—believe that we are right to be in the European Union and that it is overwhelmingly in our national economic interest to be so but that we should be cautious about the way in which it evolves in the future. That is my belief and that is the Government's position.
Over recent years, the benefits of the European Union have tended to be taken for granted and many of the negative aspects of the Union have been highlighted. The result has been that the debate over recent years has become more sour and public opinion has become more hostile than once it was to our membership of the Union.
I think that there are essentially three reasons why public opinion has moved in that direction. The first is that people fear, not only here, but out in the country, that some aspects of the Community have changed from the Community that we originally joined. Secondly, they resent in many cases what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred to as


the nooks and crannies interference
of the European Union. But, above all, many people fear the direction in which they believe the European Union may go in future.
I do not believe that we would be wise to ignore those fears—I shall address them directly in a few moments—but I think that, to put them in a proper context, it is worth recollecting precisely why we joined the European Union in the first place. We joined it because it was in our national interest to join it. It was not idealism or romanticism and it was not just because it seemed an appropriate thing to do at the time. It was a hard-headed decision to join because we saw that membership meant jobs, investment, prosperity and potentially greater influence and would make. a contribution to peace right the way across western Europe.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little progress first.
The United Kingdom is perhaps more dependent on trade than any other large industrial economy. The European Union is the world's largest trading bloc. We trade far beyond it, of course. We have interests in every part of the world, and they are growing interests. We are not dependent on the European Union, but it is a very large slice of our trade and very important to us. We are the world's fifth largest importer and exporter and the Union now takes more than one half of our visible exports. The single market was fought for by a Conservative Government leading in Europe to change the nature of Europe from the heart of Europe.
The choice that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) gave us on the future of Europe was only a partial choice about being at the centre. Being at the centre does not mean automatically agreeing with what everybody says. Being at the centre means fighting to move the European Union in the direction that we believe is right for this Parliament, as we did with the single market, as we did with enlargement, as we did with reform of the common agricultural policy, as we did with subsidiarity and deregulation and as we did with much else.
The single market offers huge opportunities to this country and we are taking them, in car exports, at record levels—

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Prime Minister: In a few moments I shall give way to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
We are taking those opportunities in record earnings from financial and business services, in record levels of inward investment, which have led to more than 600,000 well-paid jobs in the past 16 years that we would not have had but for our membership of the European Union, and in record business and increasing business for the City of London. Nine out of every 10 European cross-border equity deals now go through London. Even the Deutsche bank has moved its foreign investment banking to London from Frankfurt.
Most important of all—a point often overlooked, but it ought not to be by a nation such as ours—the European Union, together with the NATO alliance, has delivered a prize without precedent to those of us in western Europe: 50 years of peace across Europe; the western democracies working together in world affairs to maximise their influence, and war between them made utterly unthinkable. They are huge benefits.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Accepting all that, does the Prime Minister agree that we did not join a static Europe, a Europe which will stand still? We joined a dynamic Europe and the choice for us is either to be part of that dynamism or to be moved into a second category, a second division. Is the Prime Minister prepared, by his negativism, to contemplate that for our country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. Of course it is not static. If we thought that it were static, we would not have been seeking enlargement. If we thought that it was static, we would not have promoted the single market. If we thought that it was static, we would not have changed the position on subsidiarity, deregulation and much else. If we thought that it was static, we would not be promoting the matters in the intergovernmental conference, which I shall come to in just a moment. The question is not whether it is static but what sort of Europe we wish to build in the future.

Dr. John Reid: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: Let me refer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I propose to give way. If hon. Members will give me the opportunity to continue, I will make a little more progress. There will be occasions when hon. Members will wish to intervene on substantive matters.
The often unspoken fear of many people—we should address it honestly and clearly and examine it—is that Europe might develop into a super-state, an overarching Government with no national veto, no control over our own borders, prescriptive decisions, a single currency imposed and the nation state retreating to a wholly subordinate role. That fear exists out there in the British nation, and we should recognise the fact that it exists.
I am sure that in Europe there are a few people who have ambitions for that sort of European Union; rather more people do not have any such ambitions for it. I for one would find such a Europe wholly unacceptable for this country. I do not believe that it is remotely likely, hut, if that were to be the future, it would not be a future that would be suitable for this country.
In 10 months' time, the intergovernmental conference will formally begin. The preparatory work begins earlier, but, in 10 months the conference itself will begin. Frankly, it is too early. It is too soon after the Maastricht treaty, and Governments right across Europe themselves know that it is too soon. The fact that it is too soon reinforces my view that there will be no majority for ambitious plans for centralisation in the intergovernmental conference. There will be no such plans because such schemes would not be ratified not just by the Government but by other Governments across Europe.

Dr. Reid: Does the Prime Minister agree that the timing of the IGC, whether it is too soon or too late, does not alter the fundamental question that he has refused six times to answer in past weeks and as late as yesterday,


when he said that he would answer it today? Does he agree with his Chancellor that a single currency is not a threat to our nation state? Will the right hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to agree fully with his own Chancellor or to dissociate himself from that statement, but, for God's sake, go one way or the other and show some leadership?

The Prime Minister: I indicated a moment ago to the hon. Gentleman that I shall refer at length to a single currency, and I will deal with those issues in my own way at that time.
Europe's pre-eminent task for the coming years will be further enlargement of the European Union—enlargement to bring in the countries of central and then eastern Europe, and to bring in Cyprus and Malta. I believe that that is desirable to spread the benefits not just of the free market further across eastern Europe but of security further across eastern Europe, and to discharge what I believe most people in this country would regard as our historic obligation to the people of central Europe who, in many cases, have suffered so much in the past half century.
That enlargement is now agreed. It is agreed overwhelmingly because of British pressure for that enlargement. What everyone recognises across the European Union is that a Union of 20 or more states—we can now foresee the date when there may be up to 25 or 27 members of the European Union—is bound to be more flexible and less prescriptive than the original tenets of the European Community when it began with a handful of nations. Unbending centralisation will simply not be feasible in a wider Union, and many of the fears that people have about it will be seen to be fantasy fears as the European Union develops.

Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend refers to unbending centralisation. He is, of course, aware that the Maastricht treaty contains detailed recommendations—indeed, a legal requirement—for a central bank. What could be more centralising than that? If my right hon. Friend rejects centralisation, why does he not therefore make it crystal clear in principle now that he objects not only to a central bank but to the single currency that goes with it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the position in the Maastricht treaty regarding a central bank. He knows that we have the option to decide whether to join a single currency at a later stage. As I said to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), I shall deal with that matter in a few moments.
I shall speak first about the intergovernmental conference, which will begin in just a few months' time. I do not believe that it will make huge changes in Europe. No one can be absolutely certain what our partners will bring forward, but I doubt whether any serious significant changes will be proposed.
However, the conference can and should usefully improve the way in which Europe operates, and we shall present a range of our ideas at the conference. We shall suggest ways of developing the common foreign and security policy, and ways of stepping up the fight against organised crime and terrorism. We shall set out ways of achieving a stronger role for national Parliaments. and more subsidiarity. We shall build on the steps agreed at the Essen summit to crack down on fraud.
Under qualified majority voting, a larger say should be given to the larger states, and we shall set out our plans for that. At the intergovernmental conference we shall also seek to reinforce the democratic authority of the Council of Ministers. For reasons that will become apparent as my speech proceeds, we shall not accept the end of the national veto, or significant constitutional change that would impact adversely on the House.
We shall argue that foreign, security and home affairs must continue to be agreed between sovereign Governments, and must not be collapsed into Community competence. On that basis they can, and in many ways they should, be expanded to the benefit of countries and people throughout the European Union.
Reform of the common agricultural policy is bound to feature, but not at the IGC, for it is not a matter for treaty revision. But it will inevitably happen before enlargement proceeds, because the present CAP is unsustainable as we move towards a larger EU.
Europe does not have just one agenda, as hon. Members sometimes seem to assume. There is not one agenda set by others that this country must blindly follow or reject. That is the choice that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield tried to put before people, but it is a false choice. We have the opportunity to set out how we think the Community will develop, and there are areas in which the United Kingdom has led and will lead in future.
The right hon. Gentleman touched briefly on one central matter—the question of defence. The Western European Union, of which 10 European Union states are full members, is both NATO's European pillar and the vehicle for European defence co-operation. The intergovernmental conference will review that arrangement and we shall make our own proposals. I have written today to the European Heads of Government about the way in which we might develop those ideas at the intergovernmental conference, and I have placed a memorandum in the Library.
The approach that we propose is both practical and intergovernmental. Some points are incontrovertible: NATO has been the most successful defensive alliance in history, it must remain the bedrock of Europe's security and its capabilities should not be duplicated. However, we also need a stronger Western European Union so that European countries can take on their proper share of the burden and act effectively in situations in which the United States may not wish to be involved.
Our proposals fall into three parts. First, we must define the tasks that European countries could realistically take on themselves. The defence of member states and major combat operations will of course remain the task of NATO, but the WEU should be able to deal with lesser crises. It should be able to engage in support operations and handle embargo or sanctions enforcement, and it should be equipped for humanitarian operations of the kind seen in Rwanda, and for rescue missions such as the evacuations that we have twice undertaken in Yemen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members want to know how the European Union will develop; they should listen and find out.
Secondly, new arrangements are needed to mobilise European collective capabilities. A separate European force would be wasteful, and might diminish NATO. NATO has proposed that we draw on, rather than duplicate, its own capabilities. We agree that that should


be achieved through the concept of combined joint task forces, which NATO developed last year. NATO's resources would then be available on a separable—not separate—basis wherever that was necessary.
Thirdly, we need to take high-level decisions of policy and military action involving western European countries at summit level. That would keep co-operation on an intergovernmental basis, and not on the basis of Community competence.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the House would welcome closer alliances within Europe and closer collaboration in terms of Bosnia-style operations and in the development of our high-technological defence industry in projects such as the European fighter aircraft and the future large aircraft. Will my right hon. Friend allay the fears of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Western European Union may be integrated into the European Union? Can he assure us that that will not occur, and that the Government's capability to run our defences independently when required will be maintained?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend both those assurances. It is necessary to co-operate on an intergovernmental basis, and it will operate on an intergovernmental basis. There is no question of the WEU being integrated within Community competence. It is precisely to make sure that that is the case that we have set out the proposals for greater co-operation, and that is the way in which, intergovernmentally, the Community will develop, not just in defence but on a range of other matters as well. That is the right way for European co-operation to develop.
Let me now turn directly, and at length, to a single currency. I say at the outset that I still believe that Europe would have been wiser in its own interests to proceed first with a parallel currency—a common currency—which could have circulated alongside national currencies. It would have had the advantage of being market driven and, in my view, would have been far more likely to deliver worthwhile economic convergence. I believe that it was not wise not to proceed on that route. I still believe that Europe may find itself being forced to return to that route as it faces up to the necessity of economic convergence—which, when one comes to seek it, will not be easily obtained across Europe even among a small number of nations—and when it faces up also to the sheer technical difficulties of introducing a single currency. But we will see what Europe decides as it approaches the possibility of a single currency.
As far as a single currency is concerned, I reiterate today what I have made clear before. Britain will not join a single currency in 1996 or 1997 and, frankly, I increasingly doubt whether anybody will be ready to do so. Europe is not ready for it, and the sooner that is universally recognised, the better. I see no chance whatsoever that the economic conditions set at Maastricht, or the other economic conditions which are also necessary, will be met, and I see no one suggesting that they should be weakened at present.
Quite apart from the other arguments, the economic conditions are absolutely crucial to the success of a single currency. If a single currency were used to bind together artificially countries which were not marching in step economically, the strains upon the economies of Europe

would be immense and unsustainable. I have been making that clear since 1990, and I am glad that the Opposition have finally caught up. That is relevant. [Interruption.] I was saying that while the Leader of the Opposition was still saying that he did not want to be in Europe. Those economic points are relevant—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is on his feet. He knows that hon. Members are attempting to intervene and I am sure that, if he feels so inclined, he will give way, but it is up to him. He does not need help or indications from Opposition Members.

The Prime Minister: That is relevant because there are huge differences between the European economies. Italy, Sweden and Belgium have Government debts that are at or above their annual national income, whereas in Britain, Germany and France the ratio is only half that. Unemployment is 24 per cent. in Spain, 15 per cent. in Ireland and 12 per cent. in France, whereas it is 9 per cent. in Germany, 8.5 per cent. in Britain and 7 per cent. in the Netherlands. There are also big differences in labour market flexibility, which may leave some countries poorly placed to respond to the shocks that would inevitably occur in a single currency in future.

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

The Prime Minister: I will give way in a moment.
There is a large body of opinion across Europe that believes that a single currency could proceed around the turn of the century.
Clearly, all 15 members of the European Union could not join such a single currency around the turn of the century—there is no chance of the economics being right—but a core group of countries could conceivably be ready to go ahead then, a small group of nations that, economically speaking, could include the United Kingdom.
If that core went ahead, it would radically change the nature of the whole European Union. At this stage, no one can safely predict what that would mean for those within the core and, equally important, what it would mean for the majority of members of the European Union, who would remain in the Union but beyond that core number of nations.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend clearly laid out where the real problems in the convergence criteria lie, should people try to move down those roads without following them correctly. Furthermore, he pointed out that those are essentially good management techniques. Surely the key factor is that the real problem lies in establishing a timetable that makes people drive to a point that they might not have arrived at naturally. Does he agree that at the 1996–97 intergovernmental conference we should do our level best to take out the timetable mechanism completely and to leave it so that countries may or may not converge?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right that the timetable is arbitrary but, under the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, the economic criteria set out in the treaty supersede the timetable. If those are not met in 1999, 2009 or 2019, the provisions of the Maastricht


treaty are such that no one would proceed. That is not merely the view in this country—it would certainly be the view of the Bundesbank or others.

Mr. Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mr. Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the American Federal Reserve Board, and my right hon. Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby that monetary union inevitably means political union, or does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is possible to envisage monetary union without political union?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not—[Interruption.] With one important qualification: I believe that it is possible to move forward to monetary union without necessarily moving forward to political union, but the qualification depends on the nature and style of monetary union and I will deal with that in a moment.
If the core went ahead, it would need to determine very carefully what that would mean for the rest of the European Union. To consider whether we should join that core at some future date means that we should consider the practical implications of joining it and, equally important, the practical implications of not joining and letting other nations go ahead without us.
Let me set out in detail what those implications might be, because I believe that both this House and the British nation concerned in that argument beyond this House need to know the practical implications of what going into the Union or staying out of it would mean for them, their political institutions and their economic future.

Mr. Tony Benn: rose—

The Prime Minister: First, I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Benn: I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's arguments about the possible effect on the Union of two tiers, but has he turned his mind to the effect on the domestic democracy of Britain if two fundamental principles that have existed over many centuries are broken: first, that there is a route through the ballot box for electors to choose the policies and laws under which they are governed and, secondly, that no Parliament can bind its successor? If the right to tax, borrow and set interest rates is transferred out of this country, we face the serious danger that people will lose confidence in the ballot box as an instrument for remedying the problems that confront them.

The Prime Minister: It is an interesting illustration of the unity on the Opposition Benches to have had that point put to me by the right hon. Gentleman.
On his first point about a two-tier Europe and its implications, I think that, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he oversimplifies the position of the two tiers. What we are seeing develop—it is not new but has been developing for some time and will accelerate—is not just a first and second tier but a much more flexible European Union that does not base itself simply on one tier or two tiers but is wholly flexible across a range of subjects. That is bound to become more necessary as the Community gets bigger. Frankly, it is both unrealistic and impractical to imagine that 15 nations—soon to be 19 and, within a decade or so, up to 27—will operate inflexibly on the basis of rules determined entirely centrally. That simply will not happen in the future.
Let me consider what it would mean if we were to decide that we were to go into a single currency at some future stage. If we were to join, we would need to lock exchange rates with other members; agree what the single currency should be—perhaps the ecu; and possibly abolish the pound and the Scottish and Northern Ireland pounds. I say "possibly" because—

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Oh no, no; you cannot do that.

The Prime Minister: When I referred, a moment or so ago, to some of the practical implications of moving towards a single currency, I had not expected, in trailing my coat, that I would get such a splendid response from the Opposition. But the reality is that one can see the turbulence and difficulty of moving forward in that direction. The relevant difficulties in terms of absorbing the Northern Irish pound and the Scottish pound and just having the pound sterling are absolutely trivial compared with the difficulties of replacing sterling with a single currency across 15 nation states, so perhaps the large number of Scots in the shadow Cabinet might address their minds to the possible—

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

The Prime Minister: Ah, I shall give way to a Scot.

Mr. Home Robertson: Can the Prime Minister grasp the fact that Scotland and England have had a single currency since 1707?

The Prime Minister: That is because Scotland and England are part of a single Union, and I am determined that they will stay so.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Surely the question at issue is: could Scotland and England currently have different currencies and still he part of a single Union?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman recalls what I just said, he will know the answer to his question.
Let me reiterate the changes that need to be made. They are: locking exchange rates, agreeing a single currency, abolishing domestic currencies, making the Bank of England independent and passing control of interest rates and monetary policy as a whole to an international bank, on which this country would be represented as one among many. Those are the practical implications of going forward to a single currency, and the House and the country should be aware of them.
In addition to that, we should accept the possibility—perhaps even the likelihood, although no one can be certain about that—that a unified monetary policy would require a far greater alignment both of spending and of tax rates. If the House were to proceed with them, such changes would be the most sweeping changes in fiscal and monetary management that the House, with its history of control of supply, had ever considered and accepted in all its long and proud history.
The House knows, from the Maastricht negotiations and the opt-out that I negotiated there, that I am wary of a single currency for those economic reasons—wary of its economic impact and of the serious political and constitutional implications. However, if some of our partners do go ahead, there will be implications for this


country in any event, albeit different ones. There is no way in which we can sit out that argument without affecting us in one way or another.
If we go in, we shall have the changes that I have set out, but if we stay out there are other serious implications to consider, and I shall spell them out to the House. No one at the moment can be entirely certain what the implications of staying out might be. We cannot know what the impact of a single currency might be on the pound sterling if the pound were outside it. We cannot know what the impact would be on the reputation and work of the City of London as the pre-eminent European centre if we were outside a single currency. We do not know what the impact would be on domestic or international investment in this country if we were outside a single currency, and we cannot know what the impact would be on employment.
Crucially, no one can possibly know at this stage the way in which market forces would react to the decision either to go in or to stay out of a single currency.

Mr. George Stevenson: rose—

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a little progress.
The purpose of spelling out those implications is to communicate the fact that at the moment those matters are necessarily unknown. They will become clearer as we move towards the point of decision; that is beyond doubt. We shall be in a position to know more of those. However, as of this moment, the answer to those questions cannot possibly be known, except as a matter of hunch. It is for that reason that I believe that it is in our own national and economic interests to keep open the option of going into a single currency—[Interruption.]—and equally to keep open the option of deciding that it will not be in our national interest to go in.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Prime Minister: I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson).
I make no apologies now, nor will I in future, for deciding as an act of policy, in the interests of the country, that we should not make such a decision without the facts at our disposal to know the right answer. If a future Government decide to go ahead, they will need the consent both of Cabinet and of the House. They may also need the consent of the country in a referendum because, as the right hon. Member for Sedgefield said, we shall need to carry the opinion of the country with us, whichever way we proceed, but most definitely if we decided that we were to go into a single currency.
If a decision of great constitutional significance were to arise over a single currency or, for that matter—although I do not for a moment expect it to be the case—from the intergovernmental conference, a referendum could be necessary; it could be desirable, and I am prepared to keep that option open.

Mr. Stevenson: The Prime Minister has expressed his caution about entering a single currency, but will he answer a question? If the conditions are right and if the criteria are met, would he then agree to join a single currency—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 10 minutes—he has clearly not understood a single word. No wonder he is in favour of going in: he does not understand the implications of going in or staying out.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend has said categorically that we will not seek to enter the single currency in 1997. He will know that article 109j of the Maastricht treaty states that if we were to join on 1 January 1999 there would be a two-and-a-half year lead time. That means that, to keep the option open, we should have to join the exchange rate mechanism by 1 July next year. Is it conceivable that my right hon. Friend would put such a proposal before the House?

The Prime Minister: I certainly do not anticipate joining the exchange rate mechanism in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister would have us believe that he has not made up his mind and that he wants to leave his options open. Does he not understand that what we object to is the fact that he is prepared to tolerate the activities of members of the Cabinet who have made up their minds? They are saying no, no and no again. How long will he put up with that dissent?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, when we get to 10 o'clock tonight, that the line that I have set out for the Government will receive the consent of the Conservative party—he need not worry about that.
It is important over the next few months that people understand what this debate means. In recent months—from time to time in this House too—far too many people have been playing off against one another as supporters of Europe, opponents of Europe, nows, nevers, wets and drys and those who have been implacably for or against a single currency. Every phrase has been analysed, every nuance noted, every speech dissected to see whether it represents a shift in one direction or another.
I must tell those concerned that such an artificial tournament is nonsense. I passionately believe that the freedom of choice which I obtained at Maastricht must be fought for and held in the interests of this country. It is by far the best vantage point from which to conduct a single-minded and successful campaign for our national interests in the European Union.
We are going to maintain the option because the decision that may have to he taken will be the single most important economic decision to face this country this century. To take it at long range, without knowledge of the circumstances, without knowledge of the daily details, without an examination of what is happening in the markets or without anything else besides would be folly in the extreme.

Mr. James Molyneaux: May I gently chide the right hon. Gentleman for his failure to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his assurance that in the lifetime of this Parliament the Government will not be defeated—unless, Madam Speaker, you are invited to discount nine votes?
May I return the Prime Minister to the point about sovereignty, which he may touch on later? It was always clearly understood that there would be a pooling of


sovereignty by all the member nations. May I ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that there will be no horizontal transfer of sovereignty to any other member state on a bilateral basis?

The Prime Minister: From the moment we entered the European Community—now Union—there have always been areas in which we have pooled sovereignty and also to some extent lost sovereignty. But we also gained sovereignty over the actions of some other nations. There have been semantic arguments about that question, but it is a fact that there has been a pooling of sovereignty in some areas. That has not applied to issues of great national concern, and I do not believe that the concerns which clearly activate the right hon. Gentleman are ones that he need worry about. I do not believe that we are going to face the difficulty that he, envisages.
I come now to some of the related fears about the Community that I mentioned earlier. Let me address directly some of the fears that people have.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister was describing what he saw as the balance of economic advantage one way or another which would progress over time, but if, over time, the balance of economic advantage is, in his view, in favour of entering a single currency, is he in principle in favour of doing so?

The Prime Minister: It is a matter of practice, not principle. What matters—[Interruption.]. It is a serious point. The right hon. Gentleman asks a serious question and he deserves a serious answer. What is relevant is what the practice of entering would mean for Britain—[Interruption.] Of course, predominantly, in economic terms. We have to make a judgment about what is in the national interest. I repeat what I have said in the past. If I reach a decision that it is in the national interest to stay out, I will stay out. If I reach a decision that it is in the national interest to go in, I will recommend to Cabinet and the House that we go in. But we cannot reach such a decision without having the information in front of us; the right hon. Gentleman has done so. I decline to do so as an act of policy because I believe that we need to make that judgment when we have that information before us.

Mr. Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether he sees a constitutional barrier to it? Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a threat to the nation state or not? Now let him answer.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tie this up into tiny little parcels. It is a serious point. What is relevant is what the whole package means for the House, the country and our future. If the whole package says that it is in our interests to go in, we go in, and if the whole package says that it is not, we stay out. But there is no point dancing round semantically on these points. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the British national interest. We cannot judge that except in the round. We cannot judge that until we have all the information available and we know the consequences of going in and the cost of staying out.
I come now to the fear that I mentioned earlier that many people in Britain have—whether there will ever be what some refer to as a European super-state. In the sense of a European Government, I believe not, and personally I would prefer to leave the European Union before I

accepted a European Government, but the degree of integration in Europe is a matter of dispute, not least between Government and Opposition in the House.
Upon some things we are agreed. The Government are not prepared to lose the border controls that we have at present and the Opposition have said that they will support us in that. I hope that that proves to be the case. In any event, particularly to protect our improved race relations, we are not prepared to weaken our immigration and other controls for non-European citizens. The Heads of Government across Europe pledged their word on that years ago and we expect them to keep it. We shall lake whatever steps are necessary to that end.
The right hon. Gentleman accuses us of divisions. He should look behind him a little more carefully before he levels that charge at us. We know what he has had to say about his Members of the European Parliament, but what is his attitude to his nearly 60 hon. Friends who opposed the Second Reading of the Maastricht legislation? What is his attitude to the 40 who rebelled against his leadership over the European finance legislation?
What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who believes that
the nation state is outdated
and wants us to
accept the increased jurisdiction of a centralised European authority"?
Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said:
I personally am in favour of a single currency"?
Or does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who says:
I am not a fan of a single currency"?
Not only is the Labour party divided, but the right hon. Member for Sedgefield failed to explain all the aspects of Labour's policy. He promised to, but he failed to keep that promise. I am not prepared to give up Britain's national veto. I am not prepared to give up the right to say no.

Mr. Blair: Neither are we.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Neither are we," but he is. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that Labour would undermine the veto by making majority voting the rule. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head but it is in the European socialist manifesto, co-authored by the right hon. Member for Copeland, who said, subsequently,
We stand by everything in this document.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head and looking embarrassed. That is what the right hon. Member for Copeland said. With whom does he agree—his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, socialist Members of the European Parliament or the European socialist partners whom he goes to visit and signs things with so often? Whom does he agree with? Does he agree with himself on this issue? Do we know?
If we gave up the veto we could not only be outvoted on own resources, tax harmonisation, foreign policy, immigration policy, protected areas of environmental policy and any policies which, in the words of the treaty, are deemed
necessary to attain … the objectives of the Community".


[Interruption.] It is a spirited discussion. If it were possible, I would give way to let the right hon. Member for Copeland intervene upon the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, but I am sure that they can discuss it elsewhere.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] If anyone should resign around here it is the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Prime Minister should withdraw his allegation that either the European socialist party manifesto or our own manifesto for the European elections last year said that we should abandon Britain's veto. Neither document did so and to suggest otherwise is to tell an untruth.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party would make majority voting the rule. If it is the rule, what else could it be other than the abolition of the veto? He can wriggle and wriggle and wriggle, but he is on the hook and he knows it. Without that veto how would the Labour party protect our interests?
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield had some other memorable omissions as well. He did not mention the memorable indication by the shadow Chancellor to have some renegotiation on our rebate. Our rebate was protected at Edinburgh. It saved the country billions, but without the veto it might not be possible to save it.
Neither did the right hon. Gentleman mention those Labour Members of the European Parliament who voted to double the European budget and dramatically increase Britain's net contribution. I do not know whether that is Labour party policy or whether they were simply being infantile again. He did not mention that Labour wants
to avoid a tax-cutting competition between member states".
What does that mean? At the moment British taxes are lower than those of our European partners. Does he want to raise British taxes to higher European levels or does he believe he can negotiate with the Europeans to bring their taxes down to our level when they all have fiscal deficits in their countries?
We know that the Labour party would impose the social chapter and drive out investment and competitiveness. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will
never allow this country to be isolated … in Europe".

Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. I have given way on a number of occasions.
How will the right hon. Member for Sedgefield win battles in Europe that are in our national interest if he is too frightened to be isolated in those battles? Does it mean that he would never be prepared to stand alone, never be prepared to defend any position, any principle, any vital interest, if it would mean offending his socialist colleagues across Europe?
What happens if Europe wants to do something that is genuinely against our national interest? How would the right hon. Gentleman prevent it? He does not want to disagree. He does not want to use the veto. The fact is

that the Labour party's policy is one of weasel words and soundbites. It is not a policy for Britain. It is an abject surrender by the right hon. Gentleman.
We have fought for the changes that we want—the single market, enlargement to the east, a new accent on competitiveness and free trade, less new European legislation with national action as the norm and development of the Union through intergovernmental consent. None of that suggests that the Government would be dragged along by others in a direction in which we do not want to go. That may be the stuff of tabloid tales, but it does not stand up to detailed examination of our record.
We are prepared to be isolated and fight our corner, and the House does have to choose—between our hard-headed, commonsense, pragmatic approach to Europe or the politically correct federalist posturings of the Opposition. It should not be a difficult choice and I invite the House and all my hon. Friends to make that choice tonight.

Madam Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) I have some good news for the House. Because the right hon. Members on the two Front Benches have co-operated so well, for which I thank them, I can now bring the 10-minute limit forward to 6 o'clock. That means that I can call more hon. Members today.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister, in a speech that will, I suspect, in some of its places, come back to haunt him later, asked us at the end of it to express our confidence in the policies of the Government on Europe. To do so would require either blind loyalty to the Conservative party or a suspension of our judgment—probably both. The Government's policy on Europe has been a catastrophe for the Conservative party and a tragedy for Britain.
The question of Europe, as the Prime Minister rightly said, and this country's part in the development of the European Union, is, in my view, without question the single most important issue now facing this country. That question should be the subject of a widespread public debate about the long-term best interests of our country. But it has instead been dragged down into an internal spat in the Conservative party about how far the Prime Minister is willing to appease a tiny minority of his own right wing, whom, so far, he has not had the courage to face down.
The Prime Minister has brought this present predicament on himself. Right from the start, in the Maastricht Bill, he had the chance to lift Europe above party politics. If he had done so, he could have mobilised a cross-party majority in the House, which would have isolated the hard-core minority of anti-Europeans in his own party, who are now his scourge.
Lord Howe put it clearly and fairly in an article in the Financial Times on 30 January, when he said:
When the UK joined the EU in 1973, and during the referendum of 1975, the governing parties of the time included"—
as they do now—
irreconcilable cores of opposition, anxious to thwart membership. They were defeated by the determination of those governments to mobilise a wider majority in Westminster and in the country.


He concluded:
The current government could have pursued the same approach. It had the opportunity to do so in 1992, when the Commons overwhelmingly endorsed its achievement at Maastricht But this position of strength has been progressively undermined … by a willingness to concede ground to those expelled from the parliamentary party in late 1994.
Quite so. That is exactly what has happened. Or, to put it another way, the Prime Minister chose to put party before country and is now paying the price. Like all who venture down the road of appeasement, he has ended up not master but servant to those whom he has sought to appease.
What is the Government's European policy, for which the Prime Minister now asks for our support? It is a policy driven not by the best interests of the country but by the divisions in the Conservative party and in the Cabinet. It is a policy that depends on internal appeasement and external obfuscation. It is a policy, the aim of which extends no further than to enable the Government to survive by any means until the next election, when they can wrap themselves in the flag and play the English nationalist—no, the Essex nationalist—card, not because they believe it to be right, but because they know very well that it is the only means to ensure the survival of the Conservative party.

Mr. David Shaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: In a minute.
So, as we heard in the Prime Minister's speech, he is now condemned to an eternal search for new words to describe a non-position. We heard that at length during his speech of nearly 45 minutes. He has become a Prime Minister permanently impaled on the fence, because he dare not get off it. While he sits there, his party drifts closer and closer to outright opposition on Europe, his Government remain divided, his authority continues to be weakened and Britain's influence in Europe is unquestionably damaged.
The truth is that the Government are now so split and at war with themselves over Europe that they are no longer capable of governing effectively at home or of representing Britain's interests in Europe in the intergovernmental conference of 1996–97.
The Liberal Democrats are clear about what the European Union must now do, and about what Britain's role in that process should be. After a thousand years of war and conflict on our continent, the purpose of the European Union is absolutely clear: to bind the nations of Europe more closely together to ensure peace, prosperity and new opportunities for Europe's peoples.
Liberal Democrats are also absolutely clear about the way in which we want Europe to develop.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will give me just a few moments, I shall give way to him, and then to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).
We want to see a democratic Europe in which the bureaucracy in Brussels is held to account by the European Parliament, and in which national Parliaments have greater control over the Council of Ministers. But that cannot be done without strengthening the powers of the European Parliament and without strengthening the powers of scrutiny of the House of Commons.
We want reform of Europe's institutions, starting with the programme of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. But that cannot be done without an extension of qualified majority voting in the Council. It cannot be done if Britain is always sitting obstructively on the periphery, instead of working constructively with others to secure the changes that are in our nation's interest. The Government must understand that it is no good calling for reform without willing the means that make reform possible. If they stick to no further extension of qualified majority voting, the consequence will be that the CAP will not be reformed, and that is not in this nation's interest.

Mr. Spearing: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Ministers should be more accountable to the House for their actions in a secret Council of Ministers, but does he agree that, whatever we did, we would still be only advisory, because Ministers act there as our representatives, not our delegates? Are not the treaties an authority above all parliaments, including the European Parliament, and is not what he wants when he talks about more accountability and vision limited entirely by the treaties as they are?

Mr. Ashdown: There is an interesting contradiction between what the hon. Gentleman said and what the leader of his party said just a moment ago, which, no doubt, will be noted by all those who read the record. Wherever power resides, whether it be in a local council, in this place, or pooled with others in the European Union, it should be made accountable to the democratic process. That is why we must strengthen the powers of accountability, and of scrutiny, not only in this place but in the European Parliament. It is hypocritical of the Government and others to say that they oppose the decisions that are handed down by bureaucrats in Brussels, and then to say in the next breath that they are not prepared to see strengthened the powers of the European Parliament that would hold them to account. Those are contrary positions.
We Liberal Democrats want a decentralised Europe in which power resides as close to the people as possible, but that cannot be achieved without a clear constitutional settlement of powers between the institutions of the Union and those of the nations, regions and local communities that make it up. We want a Europe that integrates its defence and foreign affairs more closely—and some of what the Prime Minister said was very welcome, if it meant that the Government are at last moving towards such a position.
We want that closer integration in our defence and foreign affairs to ensure that our voice is heard in the world, and so that we can project our power around our borders to secure peace in our area; but it cannot be achieved unless we are prepared to move towards a common European foreign and security policy. We want a Europe that opens up new opportunities for its citizens—opportunities for work and, perhaps especially, for education—that can be taken up throughout the Union;


but that cannot be achieved unless we establish new rights for our citizens, and provide for free movement within the Union itself.
We want a Europe with clean beaches, less polluted waters and cleaner air, but we will protect our shared environment for future generations only by working together and sharing the immediate costs of high environmental standards. My party wants a Europe in which—yes—our economies are more closely integrated, because that makes for a more efficient internal market within the Union and a better chance to win external markets outside it. But that cannot be done unless we strengthen the single market and work constructively towards a single currency.
That leads us straight to the question on which both the Government and the Labour party are so uncertain and ambivalent. Having listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I am bound to say that I do not believe that he is personally ambivalent on the matter: he has staked out his position, and has done so with admirable clarity. He knows as well as I do, however, that the question is not what he wants but what his party will vote for—and it must be said that his party has more rebels against his view on the single currency than even the Government. The question is not what the right hon. Gentleman stakes out, but whether he could carry it through if his party were in government. That is the question to which he and his party must address themselves.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I must return the right hon. Gentleman to the subject of peace in Europe. He constantly talks of achieving and keeping peace in Europe through ever-closer union and integration. Within the boundaries of the present European Union, which countries does he expect to go to war with each other if we do not adopt that course of ever-closer union? How will such integration achieve much?

Mr. Ashdown: I can give the hon. Gentleman a very clear answer. First, however, let me say that we know very well—having seen it far too many times in this and in previous centuries—that, if Europe is seen simply as a collection of competing states, competition will turn into confrontation. The rise of nationalism and of fascism in some European countries should cause considerable concern about the way in which matters will develop.
If the hon. Member for Chingford wants a straightforward answer to his question, let me give it to him: Greece and Turkey. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the developing situation in Bosnia could lead to European nations moving towards war with each other.
I do not underestimate—and nor does my party—the pain that monetary union might entail for Britain. It would he folly to underestimate that, not least because monetary union will force us to accept disciplines that we have ducked for half a century. I am certain, however, that whatever the difficulties of being part of monetary union when it comes, the cost of being outside it would be immeasurably greater. If this country can be partf monetary union if and when it comes, it is clearly in its interests to be so.
The Prime Minister has told us that we cannot assess the advantages and costs at this stage. He is wrong: there are four clear reasons why such an assessment can be made. The first is investment. As the world moves towards a truly global economy, industrial nations such as ours will depend increasingly on inward investment. If monetary union comes, the bulk of that investment is likely to flow into the core single currency area, not into countries that choose to be outside it. Both the Japan Times—speaking for Japanese car manufacturers—and Ford have recently warned of the effects on their operations and investments in this country if it chose to be outside the core of Europe. The cost will be measured in lost jobs, lost trade and lost opportunities; we know that now.
Secondly, being within a monetary union will almost certainly mean lower interest rates and lower inflation. We know that now. Our long-term interest rates are already at least 1 per cent. higher than those of Germany because of the market's uncertainty over the Government's ambivalence on Europe, and question marks over their determination to keep inflation low. Our inflation record may have been good over the past two years, but the markets have a long memory. Over the past 25 years, inflation in Britain has averaged 8.7 per cent.—double the German average.
Even if the price of being outside monetary union were no more than the present 1 per cent. risk differential, according to the Chancellor's own figures £25 billion a decade would have to be paid in extra costs associated with debt servicing by British industry. That cost would be met by British firms and British jobs, and added to the price of British goods in the global market. We know that, and we know it now.
Thirdly, staying outside monetary union will not increase our control over our economy; it will decrease that control. We shall continue to have sovereignty over our short-term interest rates, but that will be largely illusory, for the markets will continue to have sovereignty over our exchange rates. That means that the markets will dictate long-term interest rates too. That is the practical reality—words used by the Prime Minister—of our theoretical economic sovereignty in a go-it-alone Britain. As a periphery economy outside monetary union, we would have as much control over our macro-economy as a cork has over the wake of an ocean liner. Inside monetary union, we would certainly lose the illusion of sole national control, but we would gain the reality of a share in genuine economic power strong enough to withstand the speculation of world markets.
Lastly, keeping Britain outside monetary union would mean a further major loss of British influence in Europe and abroad. Our capacity to shape and reform Europe's institutions, including the common agricultural policy and monetary union itself, would be greatly diminished. As was made all too clear to me in Washington last week, so would our influence with our closest allies abroad, particularly those in the United States.
For all those reasons, we Liberal Democrats are clear about where Britain's interests lie. We understand that the ambivalence of both the Conservative party and the bulk


of the Labour party arises not from a calculation of national interests, but from a need to cover internal party divisions.

Mr. Robert Key: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not.
Of one thing I am sure: Britain needs a clear lead on Europe, and it will not get it from this divided, uncertain, weakly led Government. That is why they should be defeated tonight—and afterwards, as soon as possible, in the ballot box.

Sir Edward Heath: I know that Madam Speaker wants us to be brief, and I think that I may he able to help in that respect.
My views on Europe have not changed since I made my maiden speech on 26 June 1950. I can therefore dispense with the considerable amount of the time taken by both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister in exchanging quotations from their own past or someone else's.
I shall come straight to the question of Europe. The Prime Minister rightly emphasised that in taking a decisive step such as entering a common currency one should do one's best to carry people with one. Of course I agree with that. I do not entirely agree that the option of a referendum should be kept open. One reason is that the Conservative party has always been opposed to referendums. We had them only when one was forced upon us by the Labour Government in 1975 and in the case of Northern Ireland where there was no Parliament. I do not want to depart from that principle because I believe that Parliament should take the sovereign decision and it is impossible to visualise the House voting against the result of a referendum. We should stick to our historic positions.
Secondly, we well know from European experience that it is difficult to get voters in a referendum to vote on the point that is wanted. It starts with one question and ends with an entirely different one, and referendums usually produce a vote against the Government if people dislike them. The argument against a referendum on a single currency is absolutely convincing in all circumstances. What will happen to our own currency while we spend four or six weeks stumping up and down the country arguing whether we should go in or stay out? If a public opinion poll suggests that we will go in what will the speculators do? The next poll a week later may say, "No, we will stay out." Barings would be child's play compared with what the speculators would do then. It is unthinkable to have a referendum on the question of whether to enter a single currency. It would be exactly the same as a referendum on devaluation of any kind. Quite apart from the time factor it is just not possible. I am against a referendum in all circumstances and particularly on the question of currency.
The Prime Minister said that the problem of carrying public opinion is now very evident, and that there are various indications that public opinion in the country has moved away from support for the European Union. He asked about the reason for that. I can give him one very sound reason. Not a single good thing has been said about

Europe and the European Union by the Government or their representatives over the past 15 years. We have had nothing but quite unjustified condemnation and there has been no information for the public about the good things.
The Foreign Secretary knows how much we did between 1961 and 1963 during the first round of negotiations and how much we did between 1970 and 1972 in the second round to ensure that everybody was fed with all the details. The pamphlets which were published have never been challenged. Nobody says that we gave out wrong information: it was correct. Some of it proved to be better than we thought. We thought that prices would go up by more than they did, and that was good.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath: Who is it?

Mr. Gill: I am flattered that my right hon. Friend should recognise me. I should like to ask him about information, or misinformation. I have a letter which he wrote in 1971—during his time at No.10—to fishermen in the west of England. The letter states:
For our part, as the White Paper said we are determined to secure arrangements which will safeguard the interests of British fishermen.
Does my right hon. Friend know that today there is scarcely a fisherman in any harbour in the British Isles who believes that his interests have been safeguarded?

Sir Edward Heath: If my hon. Friend looks up what happened in the negotiations and examines the agreement that we reached he will see that the fishermen got complete protection. What has happened has occurred in the past few years, not because of the treaty but because of the complete change in the fishing industry and in its technology and other matters. I hope that hon. Members with fishing constituents have the strength to point that out to them.
The other reason is that we have not taken opportunities to move into other fishing areas that were open to us. We had the Iceland crisis and we were finally kept 200 miles away from Iceland. At that time I set up an investigation into fishing on the west coast of Latin America. The report said that the fish looked a bit odd but there were plenty of them and fishing there would be beneficial. Could I persuade any fisherman even to go to look at them? Not at all. We saved fishing in 1971 and i is all on the record.
There is still much to be done in terms of the good things of Europe. At this moment the Prime Minister should set in hand a fresh campaign to tell people about the good things that come from the Union. His speech put all the questions and all the doubts but did not deal with the great possibilities that can come from Europe. Some 80 per cent. of people in business and industry want a single currency because they know that it would be beneficial to them.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry.
It would save industry much money in trading because instead of needing 12 or 15 invoices a company would need only one in one currency. It would also save businesses the cost of offsetting currencies in case they


got caught out on the exchanges. That would be a great help to industry, manufacturing and sales and it would also be a great advantage to the consumer and the traveller who would not have to stop at every border and change his money. In a journey around 12 states he would save over 30 per cent. All those are good things about a single currency and they should be taken into account when looking at the difficulties.
I should like to comment on the political side. We have heard little about the views of the rest of the Union but a great deal about standing on our own. I agree that at times one has to stand on one's own, but it is infinitely better when one has friends who will offer support and see one through. The past two years have shown that we have not had the friends. We did not have them over the devaluation of sterling or in the attempt to change the voting system. We were exposed and, diplomatically, that is not a good situation to be in. We have to make sure that when working for change we have the support of the other countries.
On the question of voting, the small countries are determined not to give up their position. When the Community was founded those countries were given a more than fair position. Germany with 60 million people had 10 votes. Luxembourg had one vote, which suggests that its population was 6 million, but it is 450,000. The attitude of the European Union is to give more than a fair share to the weaker members in the organisation and in society. We should keep that attitude.
I ask people to be realistic on the issue of new membership. The eastern countries will not be democratic by our standards and nowhere near our economic standards for a long time. To start thinking ahead and working out various projections over five years is to be out of real touch. We cannot encourage them to think that in five years' time they will all be just like us, because they will not.
I am afraid that more and more some of the people who were in the old regimes have taken hold of the new regimes. That is worrying. Some of those countries have a standard of living which is only 20 per cent. of ours. We should consider how much they have to catch up before they start moving with us. We must be realistic. We do not need to work out voting positions for 20 or 25 countries until the next century. However, we can do everything else to help them.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Edward Heath: Yes.

Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that signal of approval. I agree that there is considerable divergence, not necessarily in democracy but certainly economically and especially in agriculture, which concerns many of us. Does not that add weight to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the need for the Union to develop flexibly so as to take account of those divergences?

Sir Edward Heath: I shall deal with being flexible straight away; it is also tied up with the attitude of the rest of the European Union towards us. Flexible means one has no real control over what is going on. That is

what it amounts to in the end, but no one is prepared to accept that. The great suspicion against us in Europe now is that all the talk of an enormous Union, flexibility and the rest of it means that we are trying to get back into the old European free trade area. The suspicion is that we want to return to that old free trade area, in which we just said what we wanted to, when we wanted to and there was no control over it. As a result, it made little progress. I sat on EFTA as the British Government representative for three years, so I know full well what it is like. One cannot get it to make any decisions. When one sees the speed at which the Community acts, the old free trade area has nothing in it.
Our European partners suspect that flexibility means gradually getting rid of all the Community's mechanisms—getting rid of the Commission, weakening the power of Ministers and weakening all the Community's powers. I notice that we heard nothing today about more powers for the European Parliament, but that is important. We treat our European Parliament Members worse than any other country in the Union. We treat them thoroughly badly and that, too, does not pass without notice.
We are subject to that suspicion from Europe all the time, but we must get rid of it. We must do so by showing that we are wholehearted members of the Union in every respect. That means getting the machinery to work fully. We must also put forward proposals to improve the Union, instead of trying all the time to take away its powers and merits. That has tended to happen.
As for defence and foreign policy, we should get as close as we possibly can in our joint policies. I am not quite sure whether I agree with what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, because I have been unable to get a full report of his remarks. I hope that he will not try to separate everything and say that we must become so nationalistic.
Having sat in the House for 45 years, it is interesting to see the extent to which, suddenly, we are hearing about the nation state. Decades went by when no one spoke about the nation state—a form of nationalism. We were a country of which we were proud and we wanted to work with others in the Community. I wish that we could return to those days, because the Europeans do not like our remarks about the nation state. When we say, "Look what we have done," that prompts Europeans to say, "The British treat us like colonies. That is what they think we are." I was told that just the other day in Europe. We cannot possibly make friends and have successful policies if we treat those count in that way.

Mr. Peter Shore: rose—

Sir Edward Heath: I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of being a colonialist.

Mr. Shore: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is worried and puzzled by the frequent references to the nation state and the loss of sovereignty. It so happens in this country that our democracy is coterminous with the frontiers of our national community. It is the loss of that democratic power to European


institutions that are not democratic which is one of the principal worries of those of us who are serious about this matter.

Sir Edward Heath: I do not agree that the countries of the Union are not democratic. Most of them are pretty sceptical about some of the things done by our democracy, so I do not accept that argument.
As for the nation state, the right hon. Gentleman may be right, but when I am up in Scotland, I find that the Scots do not accept that we are a nation, nor do the Welsh. I will not mention the Irish, but the English think we are the nation. The situation is entirely different from that suggested.
We are now in an entirely different world from what it was when there were two super-powers. We now hear about the emergence of a super-state, should there be any changes in the constitution of the Union. If that happens, why should we become a super-state? We do not say that we are off to New York to visit that super-state—never for a moment—nor do we say that we are going to the super-state of Moscow. That is ridiculous propaganda, but, of course, it is perpetuated by the press.
Should our colleagues take the heavies on a Sunday, I wonder how many of them realise that 60 per cent. are foreign owned. Those newspapers do not have any interest in Europe, except to try to disrupt it and the royal family in the process, if they can. Nearly 50 per cent. of the daily press is foreign owned. Those papers are not concerned about our position in Europe and produce every sort of scandal they can make up.
I had an interesting experience the other day with The Sun. It related to the European Court of Human Rights, which had made an award of £59,000 to a British person and said that the Government ought to repay it because they had no right to take it away. That was reported in a stinking leader in The Sun, which said, "Here it goes again—Brussels and the European Union telling us to give back £59,000." That paper had no idea that the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg has nothing to do with the Union in Brussels. That court was founded largely by Britain, four years before the first Community was formed.
I wrote a polite letter to The Sun—well, the first two paragraphs were polite—to explain the true situation. It was sent on the day that that article appeared, Friday. Nothing happened on Saturday and so, on Sunday, my office rang The Sun. We were told that they did not realise that Mr. Heath wanted his letter published. My office said that if those responsible had read the third paragraph of my letter it said, "Will you kindly publish this letter and apologise to all your readers for misleading them?" They said that they would have to read it again. They did so, but on Tuesday I was told that they were sorry, but they did not have enough room to publish my letter. Presumably there were too many sex scandals. That letter finally appeared on the Friday. Why? Because they hoped that, by then, everyone would have forgotten what had been originally published. The British people who read that paper were misled. That is what we are up against.
I took part in a discussion on Sunday morning with Lord Lawson—it was amiable and well behaved—on that subject. A report appeared on Monday in The Sun, which set out what Lord Lawson had said, but not a word about my counter-arguments. Is that impartial journalism? That

is what it has descended to. We were brought up on the basis that all reporting should be impartial and the leader should publish the views. That has all gone.
We are now in a new world with five powers. One is the United States, which is now having to learn a new way of life, rather painfully. Russia is still a great power militarily and behaving in a way that is absolutely unjustifiable. Have the western nations shouted about that? No, not a word. The next great power is the People's Republic of China. Of course, what happened in Tiananmen square and the 3,000 people affected is still held in horror. It has a population of 1.25 billion and the standard of living is increasing on average by 12.5 per cent. a year. It has enormous potential.
The next power is Japan, which is ahead of us all in technology. Those four countries are the four powers. What is the fifth? The European Union. What chance have we got against those powers unless we are in the Union? What chance has the Union got unless we put our hearts, souls and minds into making it the success that it deserves to be?

Mr. Peter Shore: I made my first point during my intervention on the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), when I reminded him that the fact that our nation is coterminous with our democracy is a serious point. I did not say that we were handing over the powers of our democracy to other countries that are not democracies. That was not my point. I was saying that we were transferring them to European institutions that were far from being democratic in the way that we would accept for a mature country. That is a very different point but one that must be insisted on.
I listened with great attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made a scathing and intellectually very effective speech. In terms of the argument, he certainly won hands down in the duel that then followed. However, although I applaud the speech for its form and effectiveness, on two matters of judgment I cannot fully subscribe to what my right hon. Friend said.
The first was my right hon. Friend's conclusion that there was no constitutional barrier to our joining a single currency. That is a very important matter, and I do not believe that my right hon. Friend has yet realised all the implications of transferring the powers of economic management which would certainly and necessarily be lost if we were to join a single currency. I shall develop that point a little further before dealing with what the Prime Minister had to say.
We are committed as a party to an economic policy as well as a European policy. One of our problems is that our economic policy and our European policy are now in violent contradiction. No Labour Member would dispute the fact that our economic policy is to make our first priority the attempt to regain full employment as fast as we can. That is the great aim of our economic policy, as reiterated many times in the House and elsewhere. To that end, as outlined specifically first by John Smith and then by his successor at three successive Labour party conferences, we have said that to promote the goal of full employment we would use all the major instruments of macro-economic policy—interest rates, exchange rates, public expenditure and borrowing.
How can that economic policy be reconciled with an acceptance in our European policy that we can go along with third-stage economic and monetary union, a European central bank and a single currency? We would lose control specifically of our interest rates. Control of them would pass, of course, to a European central bank. No one denies that—it is self-evident. We would lose the possibility of using exchange rate policy to assist our own economic recovery and goals. We would be bound to do so because permanently fixed exchange rates and a single currency inevitably mean that that very important weapon, or safety valve, is lost for ever.
We have accepted, or at least the Maastricht treaty would make us accept in the provisions spelt out at great length in its protocols and articles, that the European central bank would discipline our borrowing requirement—the balance between our public expenditure and revenues—to a limit of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product.
The macro-economic powers which I have outlined are still available, although sometimes with great difficulty, to the British Government. How can we possibly surrender them to European institutions, the most important of which—the central bank—is wholly independent of any influence from national or European Governments? That is a major problem that has yet to be resolved.
The resolution may be in what was said about the economic conditions as well as the purely Maastricht treaty conditions being right. What we mean must be spelt out clearly, and the same is true for the Conservatives, too. I am thinking of what the Prime Minister said about the convergence criteria and "other conditions" that would need to be met before he could recommend that we join a single currency. It would be interesting to know what those "other conditions" were, and I hope that, in winding up, the Foreign Secretary will tell us. That is a critical point.
The Prime Minister ended a recent speech by saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to state what the additional conditions for convergence not contained in the Maastricht treaty were. In the event, the Chancellor did not explain but made a speech saying something very much to the contrary, which delighted the Europhiles in the Conservative party and offended the Europhobes.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The unsatisfactory part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that it reflects the theory of economic management, the theory of supply and the theoretical ritual of independent states, with their own parliamentary activity, acting independently of others. However, in the real world, currency management also has an external value expression. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that people should be alarmed at the fact that, for example, the pound sterling—our national currency—has lost more than 90 per cent. of its value against the deutschmark, most of that slide having occurred under successive Labour Governments? Is that not more important than foolish theorising about a pretend world?

Mr. Shore: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. As the Germans have well known since the war, it is of course better to have an appreciating rather than a depreciating currency because that reflects the

growth in output and the strength of the economy. Germany is now a more prosperous country than Britain, but let us consider for a moment the events of 16 September 1992—black, or white, Wednesday. We were then frozen into an exchange rate which was costing us an increase in unemployment of about 1 million a year, and we were uncompetitive with the pound standing at DM2.95.
The present level is something like DM2.30 or DM2.35, although it might be a little better in other circumstances. The change is enormous and has made all the difference to this country's exports recovery in the past two years. To say that we should have been better off had we stuck with a permanent rate of DM2.95 beggars belief. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, in spite of his great enthusiasm for all things European, can sustain that argument.

Sir Edward Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, had the Government joined in 1985 when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to do so, the rates would have been almost exactly what they are today and we should not have had the devaluation?

Mr. Shore: I am not sure about that. I was going to mention the important fact that the convergence of the economies of member countries that share a currency is crucial. There are very great dangers in their not converging. I thought that the Prime Minister was remarkably frank in covering this ground. I give him credit for the fact that, despite much barracking and hostility, he put forward the idea not of a single currency but of a common currency. He put forward the idea of a hard ecu as a reserve currency for the growing European Union. It is a very sensible idea.
I could go along with a common currency but I, and, I suspect, half of Europe, could not live with a single currency for the reasons that I shall develop in a moment. The importance that the Prime Minister has always attached to his opt-out is, I think, a reflection of his own fears and worries about the consequences for Britain if we were jammed into a single currency when our economies had not converged.
A new and serious contribution to the argument about convergence and single currencies has been made in recent weeks. I am thinking especially of the Governor of the Bank of England's Winston Churchill lecture on 21 February. The Governor, of course, balanced his arguments very carefully, but I do not think that anyone who read what he said could fail to conclude that, in the Governor's judgment, the costs—the dangers—of going into a single currency were far greater than any possible prize that might be won through it.
The Governor made the point, which is the starting point of any serious debate, that there is a real difference in the economic performance of different countries in Europe and that nominal convergence criteria, of the kind stated in the Maastricht treaty, are simply not enough. He cited in his lecture that the lack of convergence is reflected in the current unemployment statistics. Western Germany has 6 per cent. unemployment, Britain has 9 per cent., France has 10.5 per cent., Italy has 11 per cent. and the figures lead up to Spain with 24 per cent. It is true; those are enormous differences.
The Governor went on to say that he did not think that those differences could be easily or readily resolved and that they would remain. He then, of course, made the


point that to join a single currency with such differences in economic performance would sacrifice the great safety valve—it always has been in the past—of exchange rate adjustment and that we would be faced with continuing stagnation for the less successful economies and rising unemployment.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No, not at the moment. The Governor went on to say what, given that consequence, the alternatives could be. He cited two alternatives. First, he said that there would have to be a mass movement of labour from countries where unemployment was high to countries where jobs were still available. That, of course, is why we have the absurd emphasis on free movement of labour, with virtually no constraint, throughout the European continent. The second great danger which he posited—he did not posit it so much as a danger—was that there would have to be an enormous increase in the budgetary expenditure of the Community to compensate, if it were minded to do so, the regions and countries that had suffered from the consequences of a single currency.

Mrs. Currie: The unemployment rate in my constituency is 6 per cent, the unemployment rate in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—I believe—is probably about twice that and the unemployment rate in the constituency of, for example, Liverpool, where I was born, is more than 20 per cent. How come we can run with a single currency?

Mr. Shore: It is not the same at all. If the hon. Lady were to think for the moment, she would realise that we have the resources of the British state. The 43 per cent. of our gross national product which comes to us in taxation is distributed around the country to the different areas to meet the different needs of our people. I admit that, in Europe, we are talking about a mere 1.25 per cent. That is entirely different and it would be very wrong to confuse them.
As I said, the Prime Minister knows the costs of joining a single currency only too well. His speech today was, once more, pretty sceptical about the prospects of it. I wish that he had been more definite. In fact, I wish that he had followed his own arguments to their conclusions and said that he had come to the conclusion that, as far ahead as he could see, it would not be possible on economic grounds for Britain to join a single currency. Further, since he insisted on inserting the word into statements made by the Cabinet a week or two ago, I wish that he had said that there are constitutional and, indeed, political implications of membership of a single currency and not only economic implications, even though those are very grave indeed.
The Government are divided—very obviously so. There is nothing necessarily odd about Governments being divided, but this Government have been peculiarly incoherent in their policy pronouncements on European matters. I would like that dissonance of voices to be stopped. I would like a more positive and single line to come out and I would like it to come out as a clear statement that the Government are opposed to Britain joining a single currency and that, as far ahead as they can see, it cannot be a course of action that the Prime Minister would recommend to his colleagues and the House.
I hope that, in addition, we would agree—both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition are very near to pledging it—on a referendum. For constitutional reasons, for the importance and significance of what is involved in the transfer of democratic power from Britain to Europe if we were to have a single currency, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should pledge that they would hold a referendum before any further significant transfer of powers is agreed.

Mr. David Howell: When I hear speeches about the weakness of Britain in Europe—I exclude the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), to which I shall return—I have to ask why, if that is so, this country continues to attract the vast bulk of investment from overseas into the region of the European Union. Britain not only continues to do that, but, from all the evidence, is set to do so in future. That at least requires an answer from those who insist that we have completely denuded ourselves of power and influence in the European Union. I do not believe that that is so and going on and on without answering that question does not help our cause.
I am genuinely grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for securing the debate today as it has already done a number of things. It has made it pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are hell-bent on a single currency. Whether it happens or not does not seem to worry them; whether there are dangers, as I believe that there are, does not seem to worry them; what it will do to the whole of the Europe for which we have worked over 20 or 30 years does not seem to worry them; and whether it will be pro-European or anti-European does not seem to worry them. They are going that way and it is very good to hear where they stand.
It is also interesting to hear Labour's view that there is a need for leadership in Europe, although listening to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), leadership seems to imply following the rest of Europe. If that is the kind of leadership that Labour Members want, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite right to say that there is a different kind of leadership in Europe, which is more pro-European than merely following the Franco-German agenda, as served by whoever happens to be in power in Paris and Bonn. It is very useful to have clarified some issues.
I am less clear about why some of my hon. Friends want to continue rebelling, or being Whipless or whatever the state is, over European policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out with the most excellent clarity what may be called a Euro-realist position, which commands a great deal of support throughout the party, in many other parties and groups throughout the European Union and among member countries that are to join the Union. I cannot understand what the remaining grounds for rebellion are all about. I honour and respect my hon. Friends' views and I do not question their motives, but it is very hard to understand what on earth they are rebelling about when the Euro-realist position has been set out with such clarity.
The argument boils down to three issues, which I shall rattle through because we have so little time: the referendum, the single currency and how much muscle we put into the intergovernmental conference agenda.
I do not have any great difficulties about holding a referendum. I see the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that it would be silly to have a referendum on the single currency. However, there is a case after the next IGC, when there will be major institutional changes—perhaps not constitutional changes, but huge changes—for going to the British people and saying that, having reached that point, we should have another referendum, after the one in 1975. Provided that we were offering a Europe of nation states and not some sort of greater confection or construction that nobody—or very few people—wants, we would have the overwhelming endorsement of the British people and settle the issue for 20 years. I see no problem with that. I am one of the few ex-Ministers who have taken a referendum Bill of sorts—the Northern Ireland poll Bill—through the House, so I cannot object in principle to referendums. That is what we should go ahead and say that we shall have after the IGC in late 1996 or early 1997, or whenever.
I now refer to the single currency. The first question, after listening to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, who is all for it, is whether it will actually happen in the way that some enthusiasts say. We know what is going to happen. Inevitably, there will continue to be a deutschmark bloc of some kind. We can see its workings in the market now, causing enormous currency disturbance. The magnetism of a bloc that has Germany at the centre of it will remain, with other countries around it—perhaps the Swiss, in a currency union, although abolishing their currency is very unlikely, as they are not even a member of the European Community; perhaps the Austrians and the Dutch; perhaps the Belgians, although they will have great difficulty in converging; almost certainly not the Italians, unless the criteria are fudged; and presumably, I hope, not ourselves. The deutschmark bloc is inevitable.
The other thing that is not so much inevitable as highly desirable is the convergence discipline. The convergence criteria are excellent aims and targets for any sensible and well-run monetary and fiscal policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said in an excellent speech on Monday night. That will happen anyway, and will remove much of the freedom and so-called sovereignty that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who looked back rather nostalgically to the high days of Keynesian Labour policy, seems to hanker after. That does not exist any more. Ninety per cent. of the freedom of monetary and fiscal manoeuvre has gone anyway and will remain surrendered.
Do we then move on from that, living in a world of 90 per cent. of sovereignty being surrendered to the disciplines of the global market, to 100 per cent? Do we lock the whole thing in permanently? That step is the crazy one. Any engineer, designer or architect will say that some flexibility, an element of adjustment and some freedom of movement make a structure much stronger, not weaker. Therefore, the idea that we move on from having to co-operate very tightly indeed in the global monetary system, to locking currencies in for all time, is engineering and scientific nonsense. It is out-of-date nonsense and it is centralising nonsense.
Anyone who can understand the sensitivities of the currency market must begin to comprehend that moving from the close monetary co-operation and the discipline imposed on us, certainly from common currencies of any kind—I am all for those—to a single currency, the surrender of national currencies, is a huge step and it is bound to be dangerous and to open up all sorts of new tensions. As the Governor of the Bank of England said the other night, it means that it forces adjustment on to migration, as has been said, and on to fiscal transfers of a kind far greater than anything the Community or Union budget could conceivably cope with. Worse than that, it obviously splits the European Union—the Union that we have backed and fought for over many years.
There is no way in which the Italians could meet the criteria which the Germans insist are necessary if, as they say, the new currency—not to be the ecu—must be stronger and as strong as the deutschmark. There is absolutely no way that that commitment can be squared with the state of the Italian, Belgian or several other economies.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Howell: I do not have time to give way.
It is not really in Britain's interests—it is easier for me than for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to say that—to take our own global financial system into a regional, rigid currency framework. That simply is not in our interests. I can say that; perhaps my right hon. Friend cannot, but I believe that that is the position that we shall come to. All shrewd and far-seeing business men and financial people now are realising that that is the position and are beginning to question the generalised view that, somehow, it must be a good thing to be in a single currency. That is all that I want to say on the single currency, because that is all I have time for.
On the IGC, I plead with my right hon. Friends that, although there may be no constitutional matters coming up in 1996—everyone will disagree, so the situation will be neutered—inevitably there will be major institutional matters, even if we confine ourselves only to the enlargement issues. I hope that we come forward with a very positive institutional reform agenda, which says, first, that we do not take the Franco-German line on everything as gospel; secondly, that we entrench multi-speed Europe; thirdly, that we enshrine our national Parliaments effectively in the decision-making system rather than just talk about it—we have some ideas in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on that; fourthly, that we clarify the Council of Ministers' supreme role in the system; and, fifthly, that we limit and define the powers of the Commission.
The Commission is much too powerful. It is much too insidious in trying to make its way into common foreign security policy and defence policy, which it is not qualified to administer or to pronounce upon. If we want to keep matters democratic and to build our security system on the successes of NATO, we shall ask the Commission to support clear delineation, clear definition and clear limitation of its own powers. Also, we must ask for the reform of the highly political European Court of Justice.
Those are the things that we must do at the IGC. We should have the confidence as a nation to put forward a very positive agenda for the intergovernmental conference. Please do not let us stand back and hope that


nothing much will happen if we keep our heads down. We need to be very positive, and we need to say that we can help to shape a Europe of nation states and put ourselves at the heart of Europe, but it has to be the right kind of Europe.

Mr. Peter Hain: I begin by nailing a lie that has been levelled at Labour Members. The Prime Minister said that we had abandoned Britain's veto in Europe. Labour's manifesto at the European elections last year stated:
The Labour party has long argued for qualified majority voting in important areas such as the environment and social affairs. But we have always insisted, too, on maintaining the principle of unanimity for decision-making in areas such as fiscal and budgetary policy, foreign and security issues, changes to the Treaty of Rome, and other areas of key national interest.
In other words, we have said that we will keep the British veto, contrary to what the Prime Minister asserted.
I welcome the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and join him in making a plea for a change in the terms of the debate on Europe. I am someone who voted yes in the 1975 referendum but no to the monetarist economics of the Maastricht treaty. I am pro-European, but anti-Euro-monetarism.
Europe is imperilled not by the chauvinist fantasies of the Conservative right, but because it is straitjacketed by monetarism and gripped by the mania for deregulated free markets that has been so disastrous across the world. Instead of full employment, growth, investment and redistribution being the overriding goals of European economic policy, price, currency and interest rate stability are being obsessively pursued, together with tight restrictions on public spending, public borrowing and public debt.
As a result, poverty across the European Union has shot up—53 million people were under the poverty line in 1992. Total European Union unemployment has been driven up to nearly 20 million in 1994, or 10 per cent. and, according to the OECD, on present policies, that will rise to about 14 per cent., or 30 million, by the end of the decade, with all the social disintegration that that 'would imply. The toehold on power that was established by the fascists in Italy, and the serious outbreaks of racism and Nazism across the European Union are disturbing enough with present unemployment levels without being fanned still further by rises in poverty and unemployment.
The goal of European unity has always been noble. There could be few more desirable ambitions than overcoming the divisions that plunged the world into two devastating wars. But the central problem is that, in practice, the political goal has always been secondary. European unification has progressed by putting economics before politics and markets before democracy. Economic integration has occurred ahead of the democratic mechanisms to hold it accountable.
European monetary union would bring undoubted efficiency gains by eliminating the costs of exchanging currencies, which are currently estimated at about £12 billion annually, eliminating risk due to exchange rate uncertainty and preventing currency speculation. Those benefits can he significant for an open economy such as that of the United Kingdom, which, in the past, was often

prey to the vagaries of currency speculation. There are undoubted advantages in avoiding that through fixing exchange rates.
Monetary union would impose major restrictions upon the use of macro-economic policy instruments. Without offsetting policies, that would give rise to increasing unemployment in less competitive regions. With monetary union, each country ceases to be able to change the price of its currency and has less control over its monetary policy. With monetary union, a worsening in a member country's competitive position inexorably gives rise to growing unemployment unless there are offsetting interventionist policies.
Within existing "nation state" monetary unions there is substantial Government intervention, such as active regional and industrial programmes and redistributive budgets. Such intervention helps to offset the impact on weaker regions of the fact that they cannot price themselves back into competitiveness by devaluing their "currency" since those regions do not have a currency of their own. Intervention may be passive, through benefit payments from the centre offsetting lost income, or positive, through regional aid provision. Effectively, what happens through that process is a redistribution of income from more to less prosperous regions.
National Governments typically appropriate and spend about 40 per cent. of national income to enable redistribution of income to poorer citizens and regions to take place. The equivalent European Union budget is just over 1 per cent. of EU countries' national incomes. Of course, the remaining national state budgets mean that a literal comparison stressing the 40:1 ratio of national to European budgets is not valid. But even taking account of that fact, the authoritative 1977 MacDougall study recommended a budget of 5 to 7 per cent. at a European level.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, pointed out in his speech last month that fiscal transfers from west to east Germany after the monetary union that followed reunification amounted to 4 per cent. of all German GDP. That represents the equivalent of a budget three times the present European one.
The implications seem clear to me. Monetary union should be supported only if there is a much larger centralised European budget—perhaps four times its present size—and/or other automatic redistributive mechanisms, as well as highly interventionist regional and industrial policies.
However, it is not desirable to shift member states' resources to the central European Union level without its thorough democratisation. That means much greater power for the European Parliament over the Commission and the Council of Ministers and also, crucially, over the European central bank. The policy, legally enshrined in the Maastricht treaty, of a European bank independent of democratic control and dedicated almost exclusively to price stability must be reversed at the next IGC. It is economically disastrous and politically dangerous.
Putting monetary integration first is putting the cart before the horse. For managed exchange rates and, ultimately, monetary union to be feasible, let alone desirable, requires convergence in the real economies of member states. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow spokesman on foreign affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)


said, we do not want convergence in the rate of inflation and in interest rates alone. That would be unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The right-wing monetarist policy of convergence by recession and by squeezing out demand should be totally rejected.
Monetary union can proceed only on the basis of real convergence in growth, balance of trade and employment levels. If it is argued that those criteria are utopian, it must he pointed out that they are no less so than monetary union pursued without them. Above all, without a much larger European Union budget, monetary union is not worth having. The prospect of raising member states' contributions to about four times their present level may not be practical politics, especially for us, because Britain is one of the largest net contributors.
Monetary union is also probably incompatible with enlargement. At present our taxpayers are subsidising the citizens of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain as the main recipient countries—although I have no quarrel with that process. The three new members will be net contributors, but if enlargement includes Hungary, Poland and the Czech and Slovak Republics—indeed, the Prime Minister said that the EU could eventually include up to 25 nations—there will be real problems in imposing monetary union, because of the large size of the European budget tat will be necessary.
To survive and to succeed, Europe needs to break from its current monetarist trajectory and adopt the socialist themes of full employment, economic equity, democracy and decentralisation. To achieve those aims, we need a change of Government. The Tories have no credibility in Europe. Under the Conservative Government, Britain is acting like a death's head at the feast. The Tories' miserable stance of grudging mean-mindedness towards Europe means that we cannot influence the debate. To influence it, we must be part of the European family, and our partners must feel that we are part of it. That is the only way to shift European policy.
In conclusion, if we do not change our policy, monetary union may take place, even if only for some countries—but if it does, it will happen on the wrong terms and for the wrong reasons. As has happened consistently on Europe, Britain will be left outside until the multinationals, the unelected bankers and the deregulated financiers progressively corner us into joining a monetary union on their terms, rather than on terms that might favour our people.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me whether the rules of the House have changed? Is one now allowed to read every word of a speech?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Strictly not. The Chair is fairly tolerant, but perhaps I ought to restate the rule that, according to "Erskine May", it is not in order for Members, apart from Front Benchers, to read a speech, although recourse may be had to fairly copious notes.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we have had one point of order, may I raise another? The Prime Minister said that our European election manifesto stated that we were against the veto. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath

(Mr. Hain) has already mentioned that. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] It is a point of order, because I wish the Chair to get the Prime Minister to come to the House and withdraw that statement—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal with that now. It is not a point of order, because the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches.

Sir Norman Fowler: I should dearly like to follow what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said about the press in the latter part of his speech, but I shall not be drawn down that road, because the most extraordinary feature of the debate is the fact that the Labour party should have had the nerve to table such a motion and to call for leadership on Europe.
Had the motion been tabled by the Liberal Democrats I might have had some time for it, because at least they have been consistent—consistently wrong, in my view, in pressing for a centralised Europe, but at least they have stuck to their guns. But who can take the Labour party seriously on Europe?
When I entered the House in 1970, Labour voted against going into the European Community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) will remember. In 1975, half the Labour Cabinet voted to come out and the other half voted to stay in. By 1981, the anti-European tide was running so strongly that most of the able figures in the Labour party left it to form their own party. In 1983, less than 12 years ago, Labour pledged that, if that party were elected, it would withdraw from the Community altogether. That is the leadership that Labour Members are talking about. If I led a party that had those credentials, I should go a bit easy on lecturing anyone on European policy.
Of course, the Labour party now tries to rationalise the issue. The smart-suited public relations men and women who now speak for the new Labour party say with a wink and a nudge that it is the older Labour Members who hold that view. "What can one expect of those poor old codgers?" they ask.

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I mean no personal—

Mr. Graham: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not give way, but at least I have woken up the debate a bit after the speech by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) was absolutely correct about the Labour party. It was not only the older members who opposed our entry and said that we should come out of the European Community; the present Leader of the Opposition made a specific comment in his election manifesto in 1983, and I do not think the Labour party will be able to challenge this quotation:
We'll negotiate withdrawal from the EEC which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs.


The same message came from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who now speaks for the Labour party on foreign affairs, and from the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
The very last set of people from whom I will take lectures on European policy are the members of the Labour party.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was entirely right in saying that the debate today is about the kind of Europe we want. It is not about whether we are in or out of Europe, but about the kind of Europe that we want to fashion. Where does the Labour party stand after its debates on whether we should be in or out and the incredible political hokey cokey it has been doing in past years? It has ended by supporting a federal Europe, with more and more laws being made in Brussels.
The Labour party's support for the social chapter is a prime example of that. There is no clearer division between the parties than on that issue. This party wants decisions on labour regulations left to individual nation states, and preferably to individual companies. We believe that European-wide laws of the kind envisaged in Brussels will add to industrial costs and unemployment, and will make European companies less competitive around the world. That is why Conservative Members welcome so much the opt-out which was negotiated successfully by the Prime Minister. I cannot think of any Tory who supports Labour's attitudes in that area.
The Prime Minister was again right in saying that being at the centre of Europe does not necessarily mean agreeing with everything that comes out of Brussels. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup who said that at no stage have the Government sought to set out positive themes in Europe. One need only think of the single market and all that the Government did with regard to that to recognise that that is simply an untrue statement of the Government's position.
It would be a mistake—here I agree with the Leader of the Opposition—to believe that every issue of policy on Europe can he decided by the normal process of party politics, and I speak as someone who, in my time, was more party political than most. We must recognise that, on some issues, all political parties—certainly the Opposition parties—contain different views but that nevertheless there are profoundly important decisions to be taken.
In my view, a single currency is one of those decisions. It is also my view that, if and when that decision is required, it would be best reached by a public referendum. I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has so clearly kept our options open on having a referendum. If I were Prime Minister, I would have reservations about promising a referendum on Europe; frequently, the case against a referendum is put by his opponents on the European issue.
For all that, it would be a profound mistake to reject the case for a referendum on the grounds of guilt by association. I cannot be the only person who supports our continued membership of the European Community while believing that an overwhelming case has now grown for giving the public an opportunity to vote. A single currency, and the single European bank which goes with it, raises obvious questions of the deepest political and economic differences. No party is at one on the issue, and

the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made that completely clear in terms of the Labour party. No party is at one, and no one knows in what circumstances a decision will be asked for.
A referendum would allow industry and business to put their views, and would also allow the public to decide. A recent BBC programme on the subject of a referendum showed that the arguments can be clearly presented. It is patronising to believe that the public cannot understand the argument on the subject.
In 1991, I committed the ultimate unsceptical act of defeating my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for the chairmanship of the Conservative party European committee. Let me make it clear that I am not prepared to change my position now that I have been liberated from officially explaining the Government's policy. I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's European policy, and he was entirely right to keep our options open on a single currency as an act of policy.
I would say to those on both Front Benches that I do not believe that it is remotely possible for the single currency issue to be settled in cross-party deals between Front-Bench Members at Westminster. It is an issue of such importance that it deserves to be settled after a campaign of public debate which a referendum would allow.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Prime Minister today appeared to set out his commitment to a multi-speed and multi-layered Europe. He seemed to argue that that was both inevitable and possible to achieve. That may reflect the current state of thinking in the Conservative party, but we must ask ourselves whether it is realistic.
The assumption underlying the idea of a multi-speed Europe is that different countries will proceed at different speeds towards European integration in different subject areas. That seemed to be what the Prime Minister meant before the European elections last year, when he talked about Europe being
multi-track, multi-speed, multi-layered".
He went on, however, to give the game away by saying:
It is a Conservative idea in line with the mood of people everywhere".
I doubt whether that mood extends far beyond No. 10 Downing street, and I also doubt whether it commands widespread support among the deeply divided Conservative Back Benchers. It is an idea to paper over the present political cracks in the Conservative party on questions to do with Europe.
Why should I be so doubtful about that? Simply because, at Maastricht, the Conservative Government negotiated an opt-out for the UK in respect of both economic and political union, as well as in relation to the social chapter. It is necessary to look at the effects of that opt-out, specifically in relation to the social chapter, on the legal and constitutional coherence of the European Union.
The opt-out allows the other 14 member states to make laws by majority vote in respect of social chapter subjects; those laws are binding on every member state, with the exception of the United Kingdom. It will leave UK citizens in a different legal position on precisely the same facts from citizens of other member states. Those citizens


might well be working on standard form contracts. Yet the European Court of Justice must try to resolve legal and constitutional issues against the background of a different legal test according to whether a member state has accepted the social chapter.
That builds a legal incoherence into the responsibilities of what is in effect the supreme court of justice for the European Union. It is difficult to imagine—even in relation to the social chapter—how the Court of Justice could apply one set of rules to 14 member states and a quite different set to the remaining member state, the UK; yet that analogy will have to apply if we are to proceed along the Prime Minister's route towards a multi-layered Europe.
That will inevitably mean that there will be different legal standards in different subject areas according to the particular subject and the number of member states that have proceeded towards greater European integration. I do not believe that the Prime Minister believes that, and it seems to me to be no more than a device to try to unite—for the moment—the Conservative party.
There is little doubt that the Prime Minister was opposed to the idea of a two-speed Europe relatively recently. In November 1990, he said:
I don't want a two-speed Europe. I think a two-speed Europe is unequivocally bad for Europe.
In October 1992, the Prime Minister said:
No fast track, no slow track, no one left behind".
That was his constant theme when referring to the European Union.
The Foreign Secretary has made exactly the same criticism of the idea of a two-speed Europe. How is it possible to equate that clear objection to a two-speed Europe with the concept of a multi-speed Europe about which we now hear consistently from Cabinet members? It is unclear how that division can be breached, and it is unclear how the Prime Minister can resolve the differences in the Cabinet on these questions.
The Chancellor has said:
We shall have to ask ourselves about the dangers that could be involved in assuming a marginal role in Europe. It would be a serious mistake to exclude Britain from the major decisions concerning economic and monetary union.
On the contrary, the Prime Minister said that it was necessary for Britain to stand out and for the Chancellor to set out new conditions before we could accept the principle of economic and monetary union. He appeared to repeat the view that there were further conditions, over and above those contained in the Maastricht treaty, in his speech today. Yet, given the opportunity, the Chancellor significantly failed to respond to the invitation to set out the conditions when the country expected him to do so. Instead, he delivered a thinly disguised polemic in favour of a single currency, arguing that it was not a threat to the nation state. It is impossible to see how that view can be reconciled to the views of the Chief Secretary, who said that he would "hesitate for an eternity" before voting for a single currency.
That is an uncertainty at the heart of Britain's Government—an uncertainty that is deeply damaging to this country's best interests at a time when our economy is ever more closely integrated in the European Union. Our future economic prosperity does not depend simply

on the prosperity of businesses in the United Kingdom but must inevitably depend on the performance of the European economy as a whole. That is why we must have a British Government who clearly accept the principle of a single currency. Only then can they argue the case in the European Union positively. Only by accepting the principle can we influence the nature and conditions of the development of a single currency. The Prime Minister appeared to refer to the style of a single currency in his speech. We can influence whatever he means by the style of that currency only if we accept the principle and argue Britain's case as it develops.
A practical example of the Government's failure to negotiate effectively on our behalf must be the position of the City of London. The Prime Minister talked about protecting the City as a centre of European financial activity, which it clearly is. As such, it must be the obvious place for the location of a European central bank, yet we are unlikely to be given that considerable political favour while the Government's position on the single currency is so unclear and ambiguous.
The European Monetary Institute is the central bank in embryo and it is already located in Frankfurt, which has long nurtured ambitions to become the financial capital of Europe. The attitude of our Government is assisting in that process.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hoon: No. I am sorry, but I have only 10 minutes.
That is why it is necessary for a British Government to be at the heart of Europe, but to influence the nature and development of the debate. Unless we do so, we will simply end up on the outside of a single currency. We will have had no control over its development. It will be difficult to see then how Conservative Members will be able to argue that Britain is an attractive place for third-country investors. How many companies will want to invest in the United Kingdom if we are on the outside of a single currency that involves the major countries of the continent of Europe? That is why the Labour party argues for the convergence of the real economic performance of the member states as a vital precondition of moves towards economic and monetary union. That is why we said last year in our European election manifesto—a manifesto that was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people who voted in those elections—that
Convergence must be based on improving levels of growth and employment, and not just on monetary objectives alone".
That is why that progress towards economic and monetary union inevitably involves not only institutional questions, as the Prime Minister seemed to concede, but constitutional questions. That is why it is important that the Economic and Finance Council is democratically accountable and is developed as the political counterpart of a European central bank. We would expect that bank and ECOFIN to report to the European Parliament and to national Parliaments. In the United Kingdom, we would expect Treasury Ministers to report regularly to the House of Commons on the work of ECOFIN and the European central bank, and to a proposed European Grand Committee.
We do not agree with the Prime Minister's charge that we simply accept all that comes from Europe. We want a developed European institutional solution to the changes that we believe are in principle necessary to bring about a single European currency.
Clearly, different developments are likely in relation to that currency. Before 1996, we will discuss which countries can move to that idea. Secondly, we will discuss which countries will be ready before 1999 and whether there will be a majority. There is a clear danger that, unless we participate in that process, we will simply stand aside and watch the development of a deutschmark zone—a currency based on the deutschmark over which we will have no control or influence. I do not think that any hon. Member would be prepared to agree that Britain should accept the decision of the Bundesbank on a de facto Euro-mark or single currency based on the deutschmark. That is why Britain must play its full role—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Sir Archibald Hamilton.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: It is a sign of the diversity of the debate that I find myself agreeing more with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) than with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Euro-sceptic that I am, I feel that far too much power has already been transferred to Brussels. Everyone in Britain, and increasingly everyone in Europe, is concerned by the lack of accountability of the Euro-institutions and about the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, our democratic institutions are very weak. I have to differ with him, however, in that he wants to withdraw from Europe, but I do not think that we should consider that option.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has suggested withdrawal. When I discussed it with him, he pointed out that if we joined some sort of free trade area we would have to be consulted on any measure taken by Europe. That would not be enough. Let us think of the objections that the French put forward to the import of Japanese-made cars from the north-east of England. If we had merely been asked to consult on such a measure, rather than negotiate from within the European Union, we would have had difficulty in getting that decision overturned. France demonstrates very protectionist instincts all the time and we have to be in a position to combat them. Even if that were not the case, if we were not part of the European Union there would always be a perception that goods produced in this country might be excluded from Europe. In those circumstances, inward investment would be very much less than it is at present.
I am proud to be a sponsor of the excellent pamphlet that I have here entitled, "A Europe of Nations". It is remarkable for its endorsement by Members of Parliament from 28 centre-right parties in 20 different countries. I would not pretend that Europe is suddenly swinging to a Euro-sceptic stand, but this pamphlet is a good start—an embryo of a different attitude towards the institutions of Europe and a view that the nation state will have a much greater role. It is encouraging that it is not British

Conservatives alone who are becoming alarmed about the powers that are being assumed by the Commission and the European Court.
It is typical of the Labour party that, having swung from one extreme to the other on Europe—it once took the view that we should come out—it should start to embrace Euro-federalism when wiser heads throughout Europe are having second thoughts, but then the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is a past master at bad timing. We only have to look at the extraordinary debate that he has created over clause IV to realise that. It has produced extraordinary left wingers in the Labour party, who have come crawling out of the woodwork to praise nationalisation, when most of us thought that the issue was dead. When we consider movements throughout the world, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is remarkable for anyone in this country to advocate nationalisation. Such policies are followed only in communist China and Cuba—I do not know whether they are communist in North Korea. The issue has even split the Labour luvvies—some of them who are failed playwrights seem to think that nationalisation is a good idea.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be straying rather wide of the general topic.

Sir Archibald Hamilton: My comments have a European dimension because no European parties or countries advocate nationalisation at present, and I find it unbelievable that the Labour party raises that issue. I admit that I follow the advice of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who told the Leader of the Opposition that the issue should not have been raised in the first place.
I welcome the Prime Minister's analysis of a single currency. He referred in his speech to the "core" of nations that might join a single currency. Everything would depend on the number of countries that joined a single currency at that point. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, a minority of member countries may decide to do so. It would depend on how many countries joined as to whether a single currency would even survive. If it embraces the vast majority of countries in Europe, as some of those countries' economies subsequently deconverge, even if they converged when they joined, that will produce massive strains. Hon. Members have already referred to migration and the need for significant fiscal transfers across Europe.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party has been handed the most wonderful gift this evening? We have been told that the Labour party is committed to a single currency. Opinion is rapidly changing in the City of London among more informed industrialists. We now know that hundreds of thousands of jobs would have to be shed in this country to meet the convergence criteria necessary to join a single currency. Cannot we now say, honestly and legitimately, that the Labour party is adopting a policy of high unemployment?

Sir Archibald Hamilton: That would be consistent with many other Labour policies, such as a minimum wage and the social chapter, which would deprive this country of a large number of jobs.
The ultimate question, when considering the effects of migration as people move from areas of high unemployment to areas where they could get jobs, is whether the people of Europe feel more European than, say, the French. There is no great evidence, for instance, that the French feel so European that they are prepared to take a broad-minded view towards Polish workers in the ferry industry. They might be equally intolerant of poverty-stricken Italians coming up from Naples to work on the ferries. Europe cannot be compared to America, which takes a much more tolerant view of its people migrating from one side of the country to the other. The difficulties in Europe would be far greater.
What is needed is a wholesale repatriation of policies that concern purely domestic matters. There is a growing agitation in the country that Europe is interfering in far too many matters for which it does not have a mandate. Foremost among those should be the common agricultural policy. There is no doubt that if we want the Visegrad countries to join Europe, the CAP must be completely overhauled. However, we are limited in our ability to overhaul it further as long as it is held by the Commission. It should be repatriated in stages, the CAP budget should be reduced, and the cohesion fund should ultimately be phased out.
The European Commission must be reduced to what it should be—a civil service to carry out the wishes of the Council of Ministers. The European Court, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford alluded, must stop making laws on the hoof.
Finally, the motion before us has been carefully drafted by the Opposition to seduce my hon. Friends on the Euro-sceptic wing of the party into supporting a Labour party motion. But, let us face it, that Labour party is even more divided than we are on Europe. It is committed to the social chapter, which will increase costs and make many of our industries uncompetitive. It cannot quite make up its mind how quickly it would go into a single currency, but it would certainly be quicker than we would be prepared to go. We have now had a great argument about majority voting, but there is no doubt in my mind that we would see a massive extension of majority voting if Labour ever came to power.
So I ask my hon. Friends—I am sad that there are not more present who are on the right of the party—to oppose this cynical measure root and branch, or they will fall into the trap that has been carefully laid for them by the Leader of the Opposition and support a party whose vision of Europe is the antithesis of everything which the Euro-sceptics, including me, stand for. I should like to see my hon. Friends back in the fold of the Conservative party tonight and I hope that they will support the Government in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I welcome this debate and the opportunity to take part in it. I have listened to most of the debate and two speeches were outstanding. I mean no disrespect to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, or to Conservative Members, but the speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was the best that I have heard from him and I compliment him on it. I may do the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and

Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) harm if I say that his speech was another exceptional contribution to the debate. I judged it by the responses that he had from some of his colleagues behind him and I was reminded where the Opposition are, as opposed to where the enemy is. His speech was enlightening and well worthy of the debate.
Tonight's debate is about government. It is about government of the European Union, but we should not overlook the fact that it is also about government of the United Kingdom. It is about national interests and sovereignty. This country is suffering because of indecisive government. The Prime Minister is a prisoner within his own Cabinet and party. Any Government should go that extra mile for their country, but, far from doing that, they do not want to leave the starting blocks. To judge by some of the comments that I heard this afternoon, some of them do not even want to move forward from the starting block but would rather run backwards.
In my capacity as Chairman of the European Legislation Select Committee, I have a chance to meet colleagues who represent their Governments in other member states. I have just returned from COSAC, the Conference of European Affairs Committees, in Paris this week. Those who listened to the Prime Minister in the Frost interview recently will have had the impression that the intergovernmental conference in 1996 will be a status quo conference, but that is not the view of other member states. Hon. Members had better understand that they will not sit back and allow Europe to stagnate because of the domestic problems of one member state.
My Select Committee has just started its inquiry into the IGC and hopes to report before the end of the summer. I suspect—I may be wrong and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary may disagree—that the discussion of the 1996 IGC will cause great problems for the Prime Minister, and I honestly do not believe that he has any intention of going to that conference before a general election. I welcome the notion of a general election in the summer of 1997, but I doubt whether we shall have one. I say to my hon. Friends and to my party in the country, whenever I get a chance to do so, that we must prepare for a cut and run general election. I believe that the Government dare not go to the IGC as divided as they are; no doubt there will be some pasting together.
The former chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), spoke about the Labour party coming and ebbing with its opinion on Europe. I remember him going to join his family and then coming back into the Government and then going back to join his family. He has done some ebbing in his time.

Mr. David Faber: Cheap.

Mr. Hood: I do not think that it is cheap at all. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to criticise the Labour party, he should look in before he looks out.
On the single currency, I have to tell some Conservative Members that when they voted for the Single European Act, they should not have been surprised that the single currency was coming further down the line. When I hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to say that there could be monetary union without political union, I think that he either discredits himself if he believes it, or he discredits the House if he expects us to believe it, because I suggest that it is nonsense.
When the Prime Minister talks about enlargement of the European Union, as he did today, he talks about a super 25 or 27 membership in 10 or 15 years. Does he really believe that? The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said the same thing today. Are we being realistic when we say that?
It is impossible to say that one wants to maintain one's veto, double the size of the Union and leave every small country with a veto and also to say, as did the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), that one wants changes in the common agricultural policy. If anyone in the House tonight believes that we can change the CAP without getting rid of the veto or introducing qualified majority voting, they are kidding themselves. I do not think that those people are kidding themselves because, at the end of the day, we are all professionals. It is worse than that. They are kidding the public, and they are kidding the electorate. Of course it is impossible to reform the CAP without qualified majority voting. If the Prime Minister says that he wants to double the size of the Union and retain the veto, he argues the incredible.
At Question Time today, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), mentioned the French initiative on Cyprus. Cyprus was promised that it would be allowed to apply to join the Union this year, but that has now been put off until 1997 after the IGC, as has been suggested by the French. In my opinion, the fact that our Government voted for that, when they are part of that guaranteeing power, has let down the people of Cyprus. I do not accept that that is the right thing to do. They were not doing enough to get Cyprus into the Union.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. At Corfu, it was agreed by everyone that, for the first time, Cyprus and Malta would be part of the next wave of enlargement. No date was set. It is now in prospect—it may be agreed next week—that there should be an undertaking for the first time. I support that. It is a very big step forward, and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus warmly welcome it. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is on about.

Mr. Hood: I shall help the Foreign Secretary out. [Interruption.] In a recent Council of Foreign Ministers, there was a 14 to one vote about the position in Cyprus, when the Greeks voted against the proposal to leave the consideration of Cyprus until after the 1996 IGC. We know that moves are afoot to postpone that even longer, into 1997. We are walking away from our responsibility to Cyprus when we repeatedly put it off, as we have done.
I am not opposed to the principle of referendums. They are part of a democratic process. However, I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said today that, before one has referendums, one should have leadership. It is nonsense to talk about referendums when any changes are two years away. I have been persuaded away from that point of view.
The only referendum that the Union needs, and the only referendum that the nation needs, is a general election. The sooner that that general election takes place—the sooner we have a Government who will go into Europe and represent the best interests of the people, not the interests of the domestic party—the better.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I shall not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), even the parts of it that I understood, because I disagree with most of what I understood him to say. Specifically, I think that he was less than charitable. The best speech in the debate was made from the Government Front Bench, by the Prime Minister. It was straightforward and factual. It covered all the ground, and it should have given every possible reason for every hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House, or all hon. Members who ought to sit on the Conservative side of the House, to be in the Government Lobby tonight.
I shall not be unkind about the Leader of the Opposition, because his speech will no doubt look very good on television, but if one analyses it one will realise that it is most remarkable for the things that he did not say and the arguments that he left out.
If I may make an argument that is perhaps new in the debate, a great many people in the country are sceptical about Europe. I am talking not about in the House but in the country as a whole. Some are very sceptical and some are mildly sceptical, but it does not follow that most people want us to leave the Union. Being sceptical about Europe is not the same as opposing Europe. We should clear the confusion about that.
If the Union cannot stand constructive criticism, there is something very wrong with it. If it cannot tackle fraud and cheating on the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, there is something wrong with the Commission; we should never forget that. We should never forget, as participants in a national Government, that national Governments in the Union are giving illegal aid to their industry to the detriment of our industry. We should seek to ensure that that is put right.
I was especially glad to note the action that is being taken by the Department of Trade and Industry on the steel industry. The European steel industry is in a shambles. It is ironic that that should be so, because that was one of the original reasons why Europe combined.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Cranley Onslow: No; I will not give way. I am sorry but I have no time.
The Department of Trade and Industry has found it necessary to set up a steel subsidies monitoring committee to gather information about illegal subsidies and to pass that on to the Commission for action. The Department, I understand, warned British contractors that if they buy steel from certain fabricators overseas, they need not necessarily expect that it will meet the tariff entry requirements, because it has been illegally subsidised by the Governments concerned.
That state of affairs is not confined to the steel industry. Anyone who takes an interest in the subsidy issue at Commission level will know that there have been good grounds for criticising the Governments of Italy and Spain for subsidising their aluminium industry and good grounds for criticising the Government of France for subsidising their aviation industry. Both of those ran clean counter to the letter and the spirit for which the Union is supposed to stand.
I think that the scepticism about those subjects extends to others as well. Most people in this country are pretty sceptical about the European Parliament. I found it interesting that, just as the Leader of the Opposition said that the Union was important to our steel industry as long as the regulations were enforced, but did not say that they were not being enforced, he did not pay tribute to his socialist Members of the European Parliament for the work that they do to defend British interests in Strasbourg or Brussels; I have no evidence that they do anything to defend British interests. I am not surprised that people are sceptical about that.
We must recognise that there is a need for Europe to perform and to be judged by its performance, but that does not amount to a case for leaving and for turning our backs on Europe, which exists and in which we must live and fight for our own interests.
Scepticism in this country extends to scepticism about a single currency. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—I am glad to see him in his place—quoted at some length an admirable lecture given by the Governor of the Bank of England, but he did not complete the quotation by drawing on the last few paragraphs of the lecture, in which he said about monetary union:
it must be in the interests of the European Union as a whole that that decision is informed by a careful and dispassionate assessment of the economic arguments.
If that is scepticism—it is certainly not a full commitment in either direction—then it is shared by the Governor. He went on:
It is not a decision that can or should be taken now. We all have our work cut out to achieve economic and monetary stability, and to address the problem of structural unemployment within Europe, through our independent national efforts and through European co-operation … The important thing at this point … is that we all carry forward this work patiently and with an open mind.
That indeed is the spirit in which the House should approach tonight's opportunist motion. It is not a motion tabled by people who are prepared to be patient or open-minded. The only thing that unites the Opposition is not Europe but a lust for power and for office. All their actions are conditioned by that. I believe that they will be disappointed. In the meantime, it is important for us to support to the hilt a Government who genuinely defend the national interests of this country. They work patiently and cautiously and keep their options open. The referendum option is an important one, and I am sure that the Prime Minister is right to keep it open. It is extremely important that we show our resolution and unity in the Lobby tonight by supporting the Government amendment.

Mr. Derek Enright: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) got just one thing right in his speech, which was that tonight's debate is about differing visions of Europe. The Opposition certainly have a distinct vision of Europe. Perhaps I may illustrate it by referring to shops. Do people want Flash Harry's cut-price shop, selling cheap goods of cheap quality, and giving no training to the staff; or do they want Marks and Spencer, selling quality goods, giving staff decent training, paying them decently, consulting

them and giving them consideration when they have to be moved from one branch to another? That precisely illustrates the difference between us.
I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and various Conservative Members about the social charter. I remind hon. Members of the Coal and Steel Community treaties. Fundamental to those treaties was the manner in which the workers of the European Community should be treated. The whole idea was to improve their treatment and raise their standard of living. The same idea is to be found in the EURATOM treaties, and it permeates the treaty of Rome, article 119 of which covers equal rights for women, and did so well before we started to do anything about them.
Essentially, the European Union is about people and their welfare—not just the people of one small part of the Union, but all its people. We are concerned for other people just as much as we are concerned for ourselves. Unless we hold true to that ideal, we are finished as a nation.
This evening I have heard a series of thoroughly depressing speeches containing no vision for Europe and showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. Hon. Members seem to have a misconception of how the Commission is controlled, and about what the European Parliament can and cannot do and does and does not do. Hon. Members share a misconception about Pauline Green, leader of the socialist group. She has worked extraordinarily well, drawing together a programme for all the peoples of Europe, including the people of this country. I have heard Ministers praising her efforts, and rightly so.
We seem to be hung up on the question of sovereignty. What on earth do we mean by sovereignty? It means giving people power over their own lives. That in turn means enacting, at the right level, legislation that defends people, that acts positively in their interests and that encourages them.
My constituents ask what happened to sovereignty when it came to pit closures. It was not the bureaucrats of Brussels who got rid of the pits; it was Whitehall and Westminster that infringed my constituents' sovereignty and deliberately stopped them having work. The result is that one in three men in the area is out of work and actively seeking work.
My constituency is a good example of the need for a social chapter. We used to have what were disgracefully referred to as women's jobs, because they paid enough only to supplement a wage. People work 40 hours for £100 or £120, but these salaries are no longer an adjunct to other people's wages; they are now the wages for whole families. What sort of pay is that on which to keep a family together?
I applaud the idea of a minimum wage, which should apply across the European Union. The EU can ensure that we do not go in for competitive beggar-my-neighbour policies. Hugh Gaitskell's speech, which I saw on television that evening, contained a basic illogicality that depressed me enormously. He said that we could not wipe away a thousand years of history. That was an appalling statement, because it did not recognise the fluidity of history. It looked to the past, not to the future. It did not regard history as something to be built on and looked out from. The Government are falling into the same trap.
We have to face up to the problem of monetary union which, for the first time, the Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, mentioned what I am about to say as well. It is clear to me, having talked to representatives from Germany, France and the Benelux countries, that they are looking to monetary union: it will come. It may not come in 1997 or in 1998, but it will come as soon as possible after that. The House should be in no doubt about that, and it will impinge cm our sovereignty. Once a bloc of countries has entered into monetary union, the leeway that we shall enjoy to manage our own economy will be restricted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that our policy was one of full employment and that we could not achieve that under the terms of the Maastricht treaty. But we cannot have full employment by regarding ourselves as an island, putting a fence all round so that no longer do we consider ourselves part not only of the European economy but of the world economy.
Instead of pretending that we can solve problems within these islands, we must perform the much harder task—it is harder, let us not kid ourselves about that—of persuading our partners within the European Union that by bringing our policies together we can tackle the problem of unemployment. There is no lack of willingness on the continent to adopt such policies. It is Her Majesty's Government who have opposed every single proposal that has been made by the Commission with the support of the majority of the Council and who have blocked the really substantial measures.
Monetary union can and should help in that respect. It is what we use monetary union for that counts. No one can tell me that monetary union takes away our independence as we now know it.

Mr. Shore: Of course it does.

Mr. Enright: My right hon. Friend says, "Of course it does." Yet this weekend we have had an example of a young bit of a lad on almost the other side of the globe who can bring down a bank, ruin the value of the pound and send shivers throughout the entire world community. If that is some sort of sovereignty, I do not know what we are coming to.
We must be realistic about sovereignty. We must pool our sovereignty to obtain more power over ourselves. To do that, we have to know in what direction we are going, and that, I am afraid, is what the Prime Minister did not tell us today.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): The aim of the Opposition's motion today is purely party political. It is an attempt to create an unholy alliance between Labour, Liberal Democrats, Scottish nationalists, Ulster Unionists and those of my hon. Friends who wander in that nether world between heaven and hell, the Whipless ones, in the hope of embarrassing the Government and defeating them tonight. I am sure that, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already said, the Opposition will be defeated in that aim and I hope that all Conservative Members will vote firmly in the No Lobby.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a wise and balanced speech. One aspect of it on which I wish to concentrate in the few minutes available to me is his remark that Europe does not have just one agenda, and here I pick up the remarks of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). Of course, that is true. Germany has a different agenda from us. Its agenda is to maintain the strength of its currency and its fantastically strong record on low inflation and low interest rates. France, too, has a different agenda, which is to bind Germany into the European Union while Germany is still interested in being so bound and before, as could happen after unification, Germany turns its eye eastward and is not that interested in membership of the European Union.
We have a great challenge in that respect. How do we, as a wholehearted member of the European Union
help to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"?
Those words cause shivers of apprehension in some hon. Members on both sides of the House, but they are not new words. They appear in the original treaty of 1951. That original grand purpose, always undefined, has been reaffirmed many times. For example, article 1 of the Single European Act signed by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher in 1986 has as its objective
making concrete progress towards European unity.
Ever since 1973, the Conservative party has been a willing signatory to treaties that contain those words.
The free trade area is nearly complete and, as we look ahead to new challenges, there are great problems, which I fully understand, in working out how that ever closer union is to be achieved. But hon. Members should not think that that concept will go away, especially as we move from a European Union now of 15 countries to one of 20 or more as east European countries apply for membership.
Organisational changes are already required in the European Union. The roles, portfolios and numbers of the Commissioners need to be redefined; the rules about qualified majority voting need to be reconsidered. I am not one of those who in any way thinks that the present structures and administration of the Union are perfect, but we cannot and must not expect that 250 million of our European neighbours will turn their back on the concept of ever closer union just because some in Britain have momentary doubts, agonies and hesitations about it.
I have no doubt that the progressive solution will lie in what Churchill foresaw in 1950 when he referred in his book "Europe Unite" to
some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty
along with the
gradual assumption of that larger sovereignty by all nations concerned which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions".
What does that mean? It means that we all voluntarily give up some individual national sovereignty in order to play an effective part in a wider sovereign organisation of which we are part.
Up until now, we have pooled sovereignty over such matters as trade, agriculture, fisheries and the implementation of the single market programme in order to have more force in the world as a trading bloc, but we have kept it, for example, on tax harmonisation, foreign policy and defence.
Those boundaries are bound to move as the European Union develops and I understand that over each move there will be fierce argument, but the moves will take place, and that is one reason why I regard it as essential for the issue of subsidiarity to be properly defined at the intergovernmental conference so that there is clarity between what does and does not lie within the competence of the European Union.
The main issue that lies immediately ahead, which has occupied the House much this afternoon, is that of a single currency. I fully agree with all of those, starting with the Prime Minister, who say that much rational discussion is obviously needed about how much control over monetary and fiscal policy should pass to centralised European authorities when a single currency is likely to happen. That discussion must take place before Parliament decides whether to join a single currency and whether at that time to recommend a referendum.
I disagree very much with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) over his wish to force the Prime Minister to take that decision now. It is much wiser to stand back and not take the decision but to wait until the arguments are better known. That may not be an exciting posture, but it is a sensible one. It is much better to do that than to take the wrong decision now.
My own judgment is that in about the year 2010 there will be only four major trading currencies—the yen, for Japan and the Pacific basin; the dollar, for north and south America; the Chinese currency unit, which would embrace mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and a European currency unit. Other minor currencies will continue in existence, such as the rouble, but they will be subject to the regular risk of devaluation.
Before then, Britain as a trading country and a financial centre will have joined the European currency unit with all that that implies of no risk of devaluation and therefore of low interest rates and low inflation and higher employment. We will join it because it will be self-evidently in our interests at that time. But it is not a decision for today.
I remind the House of two dates. First, it is the 21st anniversary of my election as a Member of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thank my hon. Friends for their support. I came to the House as a member of the Conservative party, which had just taken this country into the European Community, and ever since then, unlike the Labour party, we have been a lead player in the development of the European Economic Community, to the advantage of Britain. We have always believed in a powerful Britain at the heart of a powerful Europe. We believe in being a participant, not a spectator. I trust that that will remain a basic plank of the Conservative platform.
Secondly, we are only two months away from the 50th anniversary of VE day. I remember that day very well. I remember the mixed feelings of triumph and relief. We have now had 50 years of peace in western Europe—a longer period of peace than at any time in the past 120 years. I believe strongly that the development of the European Union—its steady progress from a Coal and Steel Community to a European Economic Community and to the Union—has played a key part in bringing

western European nations closer together in peace. I look to the European Union and to our active, positive membership of it, to give us peace for the next 50 years.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: I compliment the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). I agreed with much of what he said. I found his speech all the more welcome because it was in such stark contrast to the normal diet of speeches that we hear from many of his colleagues, which so often consist of false claims about the secret, socialist, centralising European agenda of the Labour party, coupled with attacks on wild, federalist ambitions across the channel, which only the Conservative party is capable of seeing off; about wicked continentals, in league with my colleagues in the Labour party, who, apparently, spend every waking hour dreaming up new ways of suborning the British way of life—one Aunt Sally heaped on another, for the Government to knock down.
It is quite clear to me why the Conservatives have had to construct such a ludicrous spectre on the continent. After all, they have made so many enemies of each other within their own party that the only way in which they are capable of coming together is by creating even bigger ones outside. Of course, it is very tempting to allow them to stew, to delude themselves, fighting one another, edging themselves steadily but surely out of office. But, in my view, the process in which they are engaged carries far too many dangers for our country for us simply to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the Conservative party tearing itself apart, however enjoyable that is at one political level.
As I think the Prime Minister's speech revealed this afternoon, the Conservatives are incapable of uniting on anything other than platitudes, short-term postures and a postponement of every important decision that our country faces in relation to Europe. What, after all, were the Prime Minister's most frequently used words in his speech this afternoon? "Don't know"; "not yet"; "perhaps"; "maybe"; "wait and see". Why was that the theme of his speech? Because, on any long-term vision of Europe, the Tories have a fundamental, gut, irreconcilable divide between those who merely want the loosest possible European free-trading area and those who see Britain's economy, our trade, our defence, and foreign policy, intimately linked to Europe, and rightly so. That is why Government policy, as confirmed during the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, is seemingly permanently on the fence, alternately paralysed or in retreat—never going forward, because looking ahead means falling out among themselves.
The Prime Minister is well practised now at looking both ways. Nothing in his Jekyll and Hyde performance this afternoon alters the fundamental reality of the divide in his own party. In my view, he has only himself to blame for that impasse. From the very moment he prevailed over his Maastricht rebels—thank God he did—in the summer of 1993, then inexplicably, to many of us, decided to cave in to them with his appeasing article in The Economist of that autumn, they knew full well that they had him on the run. He has been running ever since.
These are intolerable conditions in which to conduct Britain's European policy. We are heading, as the Prime Minister said, towards another European intergovernmental conference of great magnitude.


Although it is likely to fall well short of being a Maastricht mark 2, for there seems to be no great appetite anywhere for any great integrationist leaps forward in Europe, the IGC is forming an extensive tidying-up and reforming agenda, which Britain must address seriously and play a full part in shaping, on the basis of a clear, coherent and, above all, consistent vision of where we want Europe to go and what we want our place in it to be. If we do not—if the IGC fails, from our point of view—it will harm Europe's ability to co-operate more effectively on matters that are of key national importance to Britain: our economy, foreign policy, defence, environmental protection and much else besides.
That is why the Tories' fight over Europe is so damaging to Britain. The Government are so hamstrung by their need to condemn everything that their own sceptics label "integrationist" that they cannot embrace the necessary moves towards greater co-operation which are in Britain's interests, and they cannot take proper and full advantage of what I believe is a more realistic and practical political mood throughout Europe. I do not believe that that is any way to serve Britain's interests. I say that not because the Labour party wants to put Europe first, as is often bayed by Conservative Members, but because Britain's interests can be put first only by fully co-operating in Europe.
Let me offer some examples of where I believe that greater European co-operation is signally in Britain's national interest. I believe that we need a strengthened single market and guaranteed British access to it, and that often requires a strong Commission to enforce the rules if that single market is to work properly. It also requires, from time to time, a speedy and effective European Court, to provide adjudications of disputes, to ensure that we and our British companies gain access to that market. It is in our interests for the European Union to pull its weight on trade, to liberalise in some areas and to combat dumping in others; yet, for some, that is just portrayed as the European Union throwing its weight around.
We would benefit from common action, on unemployment and competitiveness, yet all we hear from Conservative Members is constant talk of deregulation, Government doing less. At the moment, there is even resistance among some to closer working among the police and judicial authorities. We would have much to gain from the formation of a Europol, yet for some that is too much like supranationalism. We need the decisions and actions taken through the common foreign and security policy better prepared and executed, and that will mean closer and stronger, not weaker, co-operation. As for defence, we need not only a bigger role for the Western European Union but moves to create common procurement procedures and greater burden sharing in defence expenditure.
Enlargement towards the east is in the interests of our peace and security; but does any hon. Member seriously doubt that it has implications for Europe's workings, the size of the Commission, the operation of the Council of Ministers and the performance of the European Parliament? Of course not. All that must change. Are we really going to block any extension of qualified majority voting, with small new members being given the same veto rights in the Union as Britain, Germany and France on matters of crucial importance to us? Of course not. All those matters must be on Britain's agenda; they are certainly on the Labour party's.
There is, in fact, a big agenda for Britain to get right in time for the intergovernmental conference. We must identify the areas in which action is needed and the changes that we want, and frame proposals for the necessary reform. The Government must accept, however—this is important—that we shall get nowhere with those proposals unless we are in a strong negotiating position. We shall succeed only if we have already won friends and influence in Europe, and have created such an atmosphere and commitment that our partners are anxious to reach agreement with us. That is what is missing now, and that is the crux of this debate. It is why the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Sir Peter Hordern: About a fortnight ago, I feared that the single currency could be discussed only by consenting adults in private. I am pleased to note, however, that today hon. Members on both sides of the House have indulged in the practice. I was particularly interested by the way in which the Leader of the Opposition so clearly expressed himself to be in favour of a single currency.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) had any idea of the extent of the disagreement that emanated from the Labour Benches behind him. The idea that the Labour party is united on the single currency is absurd. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition himself has any notion of what being tied to a single currency really means, particularly in view of all that we know of past Labour Governments. I shall say more about that later.
I welcomed the Prime Minister's approach. As he said, we must wait and see exactly what the conditions are—and they certainly will not apply before the turn of the century—before deciding whether to join the single currency. However, I am not one of those who believe that monetary union necessarily leads to political union: it seems to me that political union means losing control of defence policy, foreign affairs policy and the budget.
Although we are making sensible arrangements in the Western European Union, we manifestly have our own defence policy. The same applies to foreign affairs—although we clearly could not have secured the terms and conditions that we managed to secure in the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade without the offices of the European Union. As for the European budget, it is controlled by the Council of Ministers, but it must be passed by national Parliaments—in particular, by the House of Commons. I therefore do not see why monetary union should necessarily lead to political union.
Indeed, it would be dangerous were monetary union to do so. It is important for democracy never to depart too far from its grass roots. Whatever may be said about democracy in the European Parliament, it evidently does not enjoy the sustained support of people in this country; we need only look at the turnout in European elections to see the truth of that. While national Governments retain a majority of support, it is clear that that is where power should reside.
The single currency is, however, of constitutional importance, if only because the European central bank will have to manage a monetary policy. If we adopted a single currency, we would give up our right to devalue.


That has been a precious right for past Labour Governments; it is absurd for Labour to lecture us about the benefits of a single currency, given their progress in that regard—rake's progress, I should say.
In 1974, the exchange rate was just over DM0.6 to the pound; only five years later, it was DM3.8 to the pound. The result of that slide in the value of sterling against all other currencies was that interest rates had to be significantly higher than they would otherwise have been. They were just below 15 per cent. in 1974, and finished at just below 15 per cent. in 1979, having risen to 18 per cent. at one stage. That is the price of a policy that allows the currency to devalue. Whatever we may think of the philosophical benefits of floating the pound, our experience is that it has always floated downwards.
That has consequences. In the case of medium or long-term loans, the market will insist that a higher rate of interest be applied to sterling securities because of the fear of devaluation. That is why our interest rate on loans for between 10 and 20 years is always at least 1.5 points higher than the deutschmark rate.
Arguments about whether we should join the single currency tend to be conducted in a vacuum. Now, in 1995, we are arguing about whether it is a good idea; but in 1999 at least three countries will qualify—Germany, France and the Netherlands. We currently have 40 per cent. of our visible trade with those countries, and the decision will therefore be extremely important. I believe that those countries will adopt a single currency. We shall not be able to avoid that; we shall not be able to opt out of it. The currency will be widely traded—probably more widely traded in the City than anywhere else in the European Union—and a great many businesses and people will want to deal in it.
There will be an obvious advantage in businesses doing so. The interest rate on the European currency will be significantly lower than that on sterling, making it extremely attractive to European businesses. It will not be a single currency at first, but it will be a very powerful common currency. We can no longer discuss the desirability of such a development in a vacuum; it is going to happen.
Whether the currency will spread more widely, and whether that is desirable, is another matter. We cannot possibly know until much nearer the time; but if, for example, the Greeks, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese by some miracle qualified to join the European single currency on nominal terms, I would guess that the currency would be extremely unsafe, simply because the margins between employment levels in Spain are so different from those in Germany. I do not think that such a policy should commend itself to those countries, although of course it is entirely up to them. Whether we join a single currency must surely depend on the number of countries that join, and the terms and conditions operating at the time.
As a common currency will be formed in any event, I think it likely that we shall join in due course, because it will probably be in our long-term interest to do so—particularly as the interest rate will be substantially lower than the sterling rate. The outlook for sterling in such circumstances, however, cannot be so strong. The currency will be not only weaker but less widely held than it is today. Consequently, the shifts of fortune, which are

bound to occur, and the fluctuations in the value of sterling are likely to be much sharper even than they are today.
It will eventually be in our interests to join a single currency as long as it is confined, which I think it would be, to the stronger countries of the Union. It is important to retain control of the budget as at present and carry out the reforms which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt out in his speech. We should also try to extend Europe's boundaries. All those features work in our national interest.
Clearly, joining any monetary union must exert considerable financial discipline on this country of a kind that we have not experienced for many years. For 300 years we used a currency convertible to gold and for 20 years after the war we abided by the Bretton Woods agreement and were tied to the US dollar. That suited us very well. When I first came to the House—I have been here a little longer than my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)—interest rates for Government borrowing were 4 per cent. for 20 years ahead. Low interest rates have much to commend them, and I hope that we can return to those conditions. However, it is rather too early now to say whether we shall be able to do that and it is much better to reserve judgment.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I get the impression that many Conservative Members are positioning themselves for the battle to come in six months, a year or two years. Many speeches seem to be shifting slightly towards a more sceptical position. I refer in particular to the speech by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who has become a Euro-sceptic. That is clearly a sign of the way that the wind is blowing for a party that faces defeat at the coming election.
I was with the right hon. Member for Guildford two weeks ago in Bonn with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We also went to Rome in the course of an inquiry into these matters. I was struck by the clear, unanimous view in Germany, which was emphasised by Chancellor Kohl in all his public statements and by the Social Democratic party and even extended to the Greens, that Germany believes in European integration and not in the European Union as some kind of glorified, Thatcherite free market. It believes that the political side of the process is as important as the economic and monetary sides. We must recognise that now because when the single currency is established—not if, but when—it will undoubtedly be based on the German economy. As is the case today, Germany, with a population of 80 million people, will be the motor of the overall, integrated west European economy.
The right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) spoke about the relationship between Germany, France and the Netherlands. It is clear that they will be in the new arrangement. One of the few things said by the Prime Minister with which I agreed was his allusion to the fact that it would cost us if we stayed out of a single currency. We should consider the problems that we would face with speculation, and people wanting to trade internationally and using the European currency rather than ours. For those of us who represent London constituencies with large numbers of people who work in banking and insurance in central London, that rings an alarm bell. If


we are outside the system, there will be job consequences for my constituents and those of many other hon. Members.
The timetable for the intergovernmental conference has been mentioned. If I recollect correctly, the Prime Minister said that it would start 10 months from now. I was not aware that a firm date had been set for the start of the conference, so perhaps that is new information. I understood from the discussions that we had in Germany that the date was flexible. It might start in 1996 or it could be delayed until 1997 to make sure that the preparations are right. Perhaps in his winding-up speech the Foreign Secretary will clarify that.
Preparations for that conference are going ahead in other countries, on an agenda which is not the same as that of the British Government. Our Government's agenda is minimalist and it is one of stopping, restricting, pulling back and reducing. Other Governments recognise that they must take actions that will make the European Union successful. That includes going forward in some areas. Unfortunately, we heard little about that in the debate, but that is not surprising because we have a hamstrung, lame duck Government.
The German agenda will be to keep the Bonn-Paris link central to the relationship. It will also concentrate on economic questions and on enlargement. For Germany, that cannot be done without democratic changes to make the European Union less remote and more accountable. The clear call from the European Parliament and from all those to whom I spoke in the German Parliament is for the question of the democratic deficit to be addressed. By that they do not mean some mythical repatriation of sovereignty to a centralised Westminster Government. They mean democratic accountability, with more power to national Parliaments and the European Parliament. That would do far more than spurious talk about referendums.
While I am on the subject of referendums, perhaps it would be appropriate to hear the words, generally wise, of the then deputy Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, in his letter to Prime Minister Churchill on 24 May 1945. He said:
I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism.
I accept that that is a strong statement, but Mr. Attlee had a point because Governments who write the question, control the expenditure and fix the terms of the debate can easily rig a referendum to get the result that they want. When the Conservative party calls for a referendum, which is probably inevitable, we should understand why it is doing so.

Sir Norman Fowler: You had one.

Mr. Gapes: I shall come to that in a minute.
We should understand that such a call is not for a democratic device, but for a device to maintain a Government who are in such desperate trouble that they can find no other way out. I tell the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) that I voted no in 1975. I stand by what I did at that time, but the world has moved on.
People of my generation, those who were born after the second world war, must recognise that we are talking about a European Union that consists not of six or of nine but of 15 and potentially 20 or 25 states. We must recognise that it is not a free trade area, but a political

and economic union, which we must build in co-operation with the rest of the peoples of Europe to establish peace, prosperity and an outward-looking Europe for the future.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I am grateful for the opportunity in the time available to express my concern about the vulnerability of Britain's frontier controls under European Union law.
At the outset, I should like to make three things clear. First, there has never been any difference between my right hon. Friends and myself about the need to maintain our immigration controls. There is a fundamental difference between us, however, about our ability to keep those controls in place under EU law, as it now stands. Secondly, there is a highly topical element to my concern. The legal action in the European Court taken by the European Parliament against the Commission; the decision of the Schengen countries to begin dismantling their internal frontiers, thus leaving the United Kingdom increasingly isolated; the response of Mr. Santer to the court action; the National Audit Office report underlining the far greater effectiveness of our port of entry controls over the European style in-country enforcement measures; and the Flynn case now before the High Court, have all lent a fresh urgency to the problem. The immediacy of the need to act positively at this juncture is dictated by the Government's own call for an open debate on the agenda to be decided this summer for next year's IGC.
Thirdly, my underlying concern is that of someone who is in favour of a Europe in which the United Kingdom can compete and trade without hindrance, but not a Europe in which our quality of life is jeopardised by a provision in the treaty that we failed to tackle.
The fundamental difference between the Government and myself has been about the legal status of the declaration negotiated at the time of the signing of the Single European Act in 1985. The Government have asserted time and again during the past decade that the 1985 declaration preserves the right of individual member states to retain their own frontier controls. I maintain that it does nothing of the kind; we need something in EU law that does.
The House will be aware that, in 1985, the Luxembourg IGC agreed the Single European Act, which inserted a new article 8a in the treaty of Rome, requiring an area without internal frontiers. At Luxembourg, the then Prime Minister was rightly concerned that that article would create a new Community objective of bringing an area without internal frontiers into effect with which the United Kingdom would, sooner or later, be forced to comply. Article 5 of the treaty—I believe that it has now been changed to article B—imposed a duty on member states to take measures to facilitate Community objectives, or otherwise face infraction proceedings by the Commission.
Advised by the Foreign Office, Margaret Thatcher, therefore, took two forms of evading action. First, she had added to article 8a the eight extra words:
in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty


in the hope that that would limit its effect to EU citizens. It rapidly became clear that that advice did not limit the primary objective of the article. Her second tactic was, therefore, to negotiate a general declaration, which began:
Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries.
Indeed, the then Prime Minister told the House when we ratified the Single European Act that without that declaration, she would not have been prepared to sign the Act.
That view of the declaration as the British opt-out from article 8a was reasserted by two Home Secretaries—by my right hon. Friend, now the Foreign Secretary, at Madrid in 1989 and by my right hon. Friend, now Lord Waddington, in Naples in 1990. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has clearly accepted the same interpretation, because he has stuck consistently to the same line. In the House and elsewhere, he has continued to pray in aid the Luxembourg declaration. He did so again this afternoon. The declaration has therefore been accepted as a copper-bottomed opt-out, but the trouble is that it is nothing of the sort and it was never regarded as such by our European partners.
My right hon. and noble Friend, Baroness Thatcher, has said in her memoirs, in a chapter ironically entitled, "Jeux sans frontières", that neither the Commission, the Council nor the European Court would be prepared in the long run to uphold what she had agreed in the declaration. So at some critical point, she concluded that the advice she had been given had been duff. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said in his recent autobiography that he was advised by Home Office officials, before Maastricht, that the declaration was worthless. He asked my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to negotiate a proper opt-out. He has recently repeated that claim. Presumably he received the same advice that reportedly was given to my right hon. Friends before Maastricht, making it clear that the declaration did not constitute a derogation from article 8a.
As I have said, it is no secret among other member states that the declaration cannot deprive the now entitled article 7a of its practical effectiveness. That article establishes a clear and simple objective, which allows no margin of discretion, which is that passport controls exercised only on the occasion of crossing an internal frontier would be contrary to EU law. The Commission made that clear in its May 1992 paper addressed to the European Parliament.
It is also pointless to claim that our EU partners will consider that the declaration, which is not legally part of the treaty, will have any bearing on the objective clearly established by article 7a. Declarations are not part of the treaty texts; they are declarations of the conference representatives and are not, as the treaty texts are, the acts of the high contracting parties themselves. Declarations are not, as such, ratified in the same way as treaty texts.
There is no practical advantage either in reminding other member states of some sort of moral commitment to a declaration that has no legal force in a treaty. There can be no comfort either in Jacques Santer's hints that the Commission would somehow accommodate our concerns about our internal frontier controls, when he said in his

speech the week before last that he had an unfailing commitment to enforce EU law. In any case, it is open not just to the Commission, but to any private individual to challenge the legality of our internal frontier controls through the British courts, which will then be advised to refer the case to the European Court of Justice under article 177.
As I said, the Flynn case has already reached the High Court this week. When, sooner or later, there is a European Court ruling against us, it will not be something that we can simply ignore, because non-EU passengers arriving at our internal frontier ports would be able to apply for judicial review if they faced an immigration check that the European Court had declared unlawful. A flow of similar cases would follow quickly, paralysing the judicial system and rendering our frontier controls useless. The administrative confusion and the cost to the taxpayer of many of those who then entered unchecked would cause massive public disenchantment. Uncontrolled immigration is not what British people, regardless of their ethnic origin, want. They have never been asked whether they want to leave Britain's back door open; if they were, their answer would be an emphatic no.
By and large we are a civil nation, welcoming millions of visitors here from around the world each year. That is quite different from letting in the world and his wife to settle here indefinitely. An influx of migrants, freely walking into this country without so much as a by your leave, would quickly heighten racial tension. The first to suffer from those tensions would be British ethnic minorities, born and bred here and peacefully and constructively contributing to British life.
For those reasons, I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to put article 7a openly on the IGC agenda and to insist to our EU partners that the purpose intended by Margaret Thatcher for the 1985 declaration, but not achieved, must now be embodied in a substantive change to the treaty itself.
That is a pro-European argument. It is a Conservative solution, which has already left the Opposition hopelessly divided, as every recent debate on immigration has shown. It is an issue on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can lead the way and which, I can assure the House, will continue to command a great deal of public support.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): We have had a lot of interesting contributions to the debate, which has at least given us the opportunity to consider some of the wider aspects of the European debate, in particular, the steps that we need to consider in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996 and the discussions leading to a single currency either in 1997 or 1999.
As well as looking at the single currency, I should like to consider the institutional changes that the Community must face as we consider the possible applications for membership from a number of central and eastern European countries. I should also like to consider the ways in which the Union needs to become more democratic and accountable. We must consider the means of carrying the population of Europe behind the momentous changes that we inevitably face.
Some argue—some have done so today—that the Union that we joined in 1972 is vastly different in 1995. In other words, the Community, as it was, is now a vastly different animal. We have to recognise that the principles enshrined in the treaty of Rome in 1957 have their inevitable consequences in what was decided at Maastricht. Although the decisions taken at Maastricht were clearly a compromise, and even a fudge, we must recognise that the seeds of Maastricht were sown in 1957.
I remind the House that the treaty stated that the original signatories were
determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union amongst the peoples of Europe.
That has to be the basis on which subsequent developments have to be judged. The imperative for action was clear. The continent of Europe had been devastated by two world wars in a generation but, while the instruments of co-operation in the early days were economic, the impetus was clearly political. In the immediate aftermath of the second world war, France and Germany decided that it was in their best interests to move towards economic integration.
The need for such action was recognised by Winston Churchill in his famous Zurich speech in 1946. He posed the most pregnant question of all: how should Europe respond to the devastation inflicted by war? He answered it thus:
It is to re-create the European family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe.
We may agree or disagree with the prescription, but it is clear that in that speech Winston Churchill recognised the importance of political and economic integration.
Britain's refusal to join the original six was based on a profound misunderstanding of its position in the post-war world. The British economy, as we have heard from hon. Members of all parties tonight, could not hope to compete outside the Union, and its political influence was severely diminished. However, when that realisation dawned, it was too late to shape the kind of Community that many people in Britain wanted. The original six had pressed ahead, and the terms of the treaty of Rome, and subsequent developments, were fixed in 1957.
The debate in Britain on the single currency has echoes of the past. There is no doubt in my mind that every decision taken since 1957 has led to the setting up of a single currency as envisaged at Maastricht. It should not have come as a surprise to anyone. In fact, there is very little debate on the issue in other member states. They do not have an opt-out or the kind of sterile debate that we have in the United Kingdom.
I cannot understand the argument about the loss of sovereignty because that argument should have been faced in the debates leading to the Single European Act. It did have consequences for the sovereignty of member states because its purpose was to set up an internal market by bringing down trade barriers, removing customs controls and moving to harmonisation of indirect taxation. The move to harmonise indirect taxation impinges directly on sovereignty.
The Government agreed to the formula set out at Maastricht to achieve a single currency. It is now a treaty obligation. The convergence criteria apply here. We constantly have to ask ourselves what will happen with price stability, reducing Government deficits and

borrowing and so on. What happens in 1997 or 1999 when the criteria have been achieved, if they are achieved? How can we agree to the convergence criteria and set our targets accordingly but, once the targets have been achieved, say that we wish to remain outside the single currency? It is inconceivable that, having got that far. any Government would want to say no.
Alongside the debate on economic and monetary union, we must consider the Union's lack of accountability and transparency in its decision-making process. It must also become demonstrably democratic. For example, the Council of Ministers should open its doors and allow its proceedings to be publicly scrutinised and, as has been said, the European Parliament should be given greater powers of co-decision and new powers to amend the Commission's proposals.
In the short term, my party would like the Committee of the Regions to develop in such a way that it can take responsibility for regional policy, including structural funds and Community initiatives and, in the medium term, become the second chamber in a European bicameral parliamentary system.
I also want a change in the way that portfolios are allocated when Commissioners are appointed. The initial choice should be in the hands of the President of the Commission, subject to the approval of Parliament. This year's proceedings were a total farce because the horse trading between member states meant that it had already been decided which Commissioners should have which portfolios.
The Commissioners appeared before Parliament but it was merely a facade to suggest that Parliament was involved in some form of scrutiny. I should like the President to be able to decide on the portfolios, subject to real scrutiny, and the European Parliament should be given the opportunity to reject particular portfolios being allocated to particular Commissioners in certain circumstances. That would make the Commission more accountable to the European Parliament. I can see no problems with that. One cannot say that the European Commission is unaccountable and unelected but then deny it the legitimacy that it should have through its responsibility to the European Parliament. They are some of the institutional changes that should be taken on board at the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
Plaid Cymru recognises that the Union has to take further steps to achieve political as well as economic union through institutional change and the development of a common approach to defence and foreign policy. In that development, it is right that institutional and constitutional change is not limited to the European stage. There should be accountability at all levels. That is why there has been a growth in autonomy and self-government throughout western Europe—in Germany, Spain and Belgium and the small member states of the European Union. The best way to make progress is to ensure that, while it is necessary for some decisions to be taken at the European level, others can be taken at a local, national or regional level.
In recent years, Wales has forged new and exciting links with the motor regions in Europe, but those other regions possess a degree of autonomy and self-government that is denied to Wales. If one takes the small—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. William Cash: I heard the Prime Minister's speech with some misgivings and sadness. I believed that we had a tremendous opportunity today to hear a speech that could have defined a new way forward for a new Europe, instead of which we heard, in effect, an endorsement of the position under the Maastricht treaty. Unless and until we renegotiate that treaty, I fear that we are locked into a legal framework from which there is no escape.
The Prime Minister spoke today about a number of matters, including the question of a single currency, without giving us any hope that we would find a way out of the trap that Maastricht has presented. I believe that we have now reached a point where it is becoming ever more evident that the people not only of this country but elsewhere in Europe have increasingly moved against the single currency.
Opinion polls in Der Spiegel in Germany recently indicated that people there do not want a single currency. In a Harris poll of 250 top executives in the City of London, 63 per cent. wanted a referendum. On Central Television on Sunday, I debated against one of my positive European colleagues and we had a phone-in after the debate on a single currency. The motion that I put forward to reject the single currency was carried by 71 per cent. of the people who phoned in, compared with 29 per cent. who favoured a single currency.
What concerns me is that we are not making the kind of progress, which seemed to be implicit in the language of the Prime Minister and for which I had been looking over the past few years. Certainly there has been a trend in the right direction. Unfortunately, the promise has not been matched by the performance. For example, in The Economist on 25 September 1993, my right hon. Friend said:
I hope my fellow heads of government will resist the temptation to recite the mantra of full economic and monetary union as if nothing had changed. If they do recite it, it will have all the quaintness of a rain dance and about the same potency.
I would have very much liked to have heard such language again in this debate.
In the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave in Leiden on 7 September, almost exactly a year later in 1994, he said:
I see a real danger, in talk of a hard core, inner and outer circles, a two-tier Europe. I recoil from ideas for a Union in which some would be more equal than others. There is not, and should never be, an exclusive hard core either of countries or of policies.
The problem is that the Maastricht treaty has created that very situation. By failing to veto economic and monetary union and by allowing it to take effect irrevocably on I January 1999, as I indicated in my intervention during the Prime Minister's speech, the circumstances are being created; the trap has been fallen into. The result is that our Government are truly on the line. By that, I mean that it will be impossible for us to escape from the question that I put to the Prime Minister in the confidence motion over the Maastricht treaty. I asked him if he had not presented the British people with the unnecessary question of whether we would have to leave the European Community after 1996. There is a deadline.
Today I was looking for a commitment that we would not have a single currency at all in principle. When the Prime Minister said that we would not yield to any unbending centralisation, I made the point, with which people surely cannot argue, that a central bank goes with a single currency, so if we make a commitment to refute unbending centralisation, we must be absolutely clear that we will reject the single currency. It is a practical question as well as a matter of principle. It seems, therefore, that there is no contest on the argument. The question primarily is one of timing. I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the logic of his position is that we would say, "Not yet; we will make the decision later." He is pretty well saying that we must be practical about it and we must view the circumstances at the time.
Let me turn the minds of hon. Members back to the circumstances of the exchange rate mechanism and apply a practical application of the same principle. When we went into the exchange rate mechanism, we were not bound into a legal framework from which there was no retreat. As we know, although we were ignominiously ejected from the ERM because the Government refused to listen to those of us who were saying that it was a disaster—we had to get out and the sooner the better—at least we had the option of being able to get out on our own terms, however expensive that may have been for the British economy and however disastrous the policy.
If one applies the same principle to economic and monetary union under the Maastricht treaty, who is to say what will happen by 2001 or 2002, bearing in mind, for example, what the Governor of the Bank of England has said about the dangers of monetary union—the practical application of the principles that I am advocating—to jobs?
As we know from a recent survey, Europe is suffering the worst unemployment for 30 years—despite the Cecchim report; despite all the promises that were made. Therefore, if we get ourselves into a position by not rejecting a single currency now and kick the ball into the long grass, which is basically what the Prime Minister is suggesting, we shall end up being told in the treaty negotiations that everything was decided in the Maastricht treaty.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister refers to the fact that there will be no constitutional implications with respect to the Maastricht arrangements, which I would not resist if they were to have a significant constitutional impact on the United Kingdom, which is what he said virtually the other day in the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, he is effectively saying that we have adopted a position already, through the Maastricht treaty, which is a matter of principle, but that if we go further down that route, it would be construed as a constitutional issue with very severe practical implications. In fact, it is already a constitutional issue. That is a problem. It is the lack of logic in my right hon. Friend's argument that I find so difficult.
If we get to the point, as we did with the exchange rate mechanism, that we do not want any more truck with economic and monetary union, yet we find that we have locked ourselves into it, there is no way out. As a matter of principle, we should be getting out of it now.
If we had the leadership and the determination to look to the landscape of the next few years and consider the fact that the French presidency may last for seven years—that will be decided in April or May this year—there would be a real possibility that we could change, by that


leadership, the nature of the debate in France. If we said that we were not going to have a single currency and said it soon enough—now—the people in France, let alone the leaders who are squabbling with one another, would realise that they faced being pretty well left in a Europe on their own with Germany, just as in the Maastricht referendum, which got through by only a whisker and would not now if it were put back to the French electorate. We would, therefore, present circumstances in which we would change the nature of the debate in France and, at the same time, ensure that we could renegotiate the Maastricht treaty on those practical considerations to which I have referred.
There are profoundly good economic reasons as well as political reasons for rejecting a single currency, but above all else, it is a question of principle. It is a question of the democracy of the United Kingdom and the question is, who governs Britain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: We listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). It is a notable illustration of the tensions and divisions which afflict the Conservative party over Europe that there is a long list of ministerial victims, who have been either pushed out or have fallen on their swords because of Europe. Indeed, it is a long and prestigious list of names: Lawson, Howe, Ridley, even Thatcher, to which I suppose that we must add the name of Wardle. As consolation for the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, he can at least be sure that he will not be the last—others will go the same way.
The reason for the fundamental division within the Conservative party on the issue of Europe is that the Conservatives simply do not understand Europe. They certainly do not like it; they have no affection for it, but they do not understand it, either. They do not understand Europe because they do not really understand Britain. They do not understand what Britain is all about.
We have heard much this evening about Britain being a nation state. Of course that is true; Britain is a nation state in one sense—it is obviously a state—and we all feel a national attachment towards the notion of Britain. We all feel British in an important part of ourselves. But, at the same time, Britain is a multinational state. It is a union of four nations: Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. We can have a multinational state, a multinational identity, and a strong British identity as well. We can be both Scottish and British. Truly to appreciate that should put to rest the exaggerated worries of some Euro-sceptics about the dangers to national identity of further integration within Europe.
I do not argue or recommend that the pooling of sovereignty within the European Union should lead to a multinational union such as the United Kingdom. The way in which the European Union will evolve will be completely unique—it will evolve in its own original way. It will not be like the United Kingdom, the United. States of America or the federal constitution of Germany. Indeed, I would not want it to be like the United Kingdom, because, in the 20th century, in particular, the United Kingdom is a model of a multinational union which is much too centralised economically and politically.
The United Kingdom shows the absurdity of the fear that European integration will lead to a loss of national identity. British integration has not lead to a loss of Scottish identity. With European integration, we are not losing identity; we are gaining a new identity. In addition to our Scottish, English, Welsh and British identities, we will develop a European identity. Indeed, that is already happening throughout Europe and within the United Kingdom. That factor has been missing from the debate. In particular, it has been missing from Conservative Members' speeches. People are beginning to feel European. They feel wholly British, of course, but they are beginning to feel European as well. It has become more natural for young people in particular to think of themselves as Europeans.
If Conservative Members really understood and empathised with the new European identity, they could concentrate on the real agenda—the real issues—instead of the bogeymen that they constantly raise. I refer, for example, to the need for radical reform of the common agricultural policy. The Government claim to be in favour of reform, but their claim is completely false and spurious. The Government were one of the main parties to block the fundamental changes which Ray MacSharry wished when he was Agriculture Commissioner. The reason for that is that, although the United Kingdom is a net loser through the CAP, a small but politically powerful group of farmers gain greatly out of the CAP.
Twenty per cent. of farmers receive 80 per cent. of all CAP funds. The bulk of funds goes to a small minority of farmers. That is a fundamental iniquity that the Conservative Government would never even think of challenging, and that is why we need a Labour Government to push through fundamental reform of the CAP.
The same could be said of the common fisheries policy. Again, there is need for a fundamental reform to make its operation more regional and more sensitive to the new enforcement mechanisms. Again, the Conservatives simply do not have the will to pursue such radical reform, because they simply do not care about fishing communities.
The Government are now claiming some credit for trying to move along greater co-operation within Europe on defence. But the Government, year after year, resisted the notion of building a strong European pillar on defence. They constantly told us that that would accelerate the withdrawal of the United States from involvement in the affairs of Europe. Now they are beginning to turn. I welcome that, but I cannot believe that their hearts are really in that development, either. That is a fundamentally important development to pursue. Without a common defence policy as set out in Maastricht and without giving substance to it, there can be no credibility or substance to a common foreign and security policy.
I will not say much about the social chapter, because my colleagues have covered that matter comprehensively, but how can the Government talk about increasing the conditions for genuine convergence among the different European economies when they opt out of the social chapter? Surely social convergence has to exist along with economic convergence.
On the issue of the single currency, the reality is that it will come. It is not a question of whether it is a good thing for Europe or whether Europe should go ahead. Europe will go ahead. There will be core countries,


probably by 1999—France, Germany, Benelux, and probably Austria. The question for Britain is: when that European core goes ahead, should we be part of it or stay outside? We have only to ask that question to receive the answer. It is inconceivable that the United Kingdom should stay outside. We really would then be in the second division.
I give a final warning that, if Europe goes ahead and Britain tries to stay outside, we could not retain the status quo in Britain. If that happened it would set up tensions within the United Kingdom itself, particularly in Scotland, which could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The status quo is not a serious alternative. We have to be part of the process of European integration.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The whole House will have listened with great interest and attention to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, but I refer to a speech that he made at the beginning of February to the Conservative Way Forward group, when he said:
Europe's future matters to us … we should debate it. And we have an obligation to shape it and make it more congenial to us.
He then went on to say:
Popular opinion across Europe cannot be ignored.
I agree with that, and I am sure that the whole House would agree with it, but the fact of the matter is that, especially in this country, every stage of the process towards European integration has been rammed through Parliament, to the virtual exclusion of what people outside this place are thinking. The treaty of accession was rammed through the House against the better judgment of several prominent and principled Conservative Members of Parliament. The Single European Act was rammed through Parliament after a guillotined debate. The Maastricht treaty itself involved a vote of confidence. More recently, of course, the European finance Bill involved a motion of confidence to which seven of my colleagues and I declined to respond.
Since then, I and my eight colleagues have been on the receiving end of thousands of letters, the majority of which have said three things: first, "We agree with you on the issue"; secondly, "Thank goodness someone is at last standing up for what we believe in"; and, thirdly, "Don't give in!" Very sadly, many of them sign off as "Disillusioned Tory", "Ex-party Worker", or "Former Tory Voter".
Those are signals which our Government simply cannot afford to ignore. With a general election two years away, those are messages which they must heed or face the consequences. It is no longer a question of appeasing foreign Governments, placating querulous Cabinet Ministers, or wooing the Whipless Back Benchers. The Government must listen to the people. Sooner or later, the political classes will have to obtain a mandate for their European policies from the very people who put us here. Sooner or later they will have to recognise that there are only two ways of doing that—either through a referendum or by offering a real choice at the next general election. To my colleagues I say simply that if by the next general election the Conservative party does not offer that real choice, make no bones about it, others most certainly will.
I make no secret of my own preference. It would be for the Tory party to be seen as the party offering a clear and unambiguous alternative to the sell-out promised by the socialist Opposition parties. I should like to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has been kind enough to write the foreword to a pamphlet entitled "A Europe of Nations", say that he stands four-square behind the 49 conclusions that my 11 colleagues and I published in that pamphlet.
Those conclusions are supported by 28 centre-right parties in 20 other European countries. They are not the findings of an isolated minority but the considered opinions of respected mainstream politicians in this country and on the continent—indeed, across the whole of Europe.
The conclusions are in no way demands. They represent a series of serious and thoughtful suggestions that in our opinion would strengthen the Government's hand at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference and significantly improve the Tory party's prospects at the next general election. Whether the Government adopt those suggestions is of course a matter for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to decide. But that is a judgment that they must now make—and by their judgment they will themselves be judged.
I shall make one final point. There is at the moment a depth of disillusion with politicians, and a contempt for the arrogance and deceit of the political classes that will not be dispelled by empty rhetoric. To use a modern idiom, the voters want to see the beef.
It has been a long time coming, but the moment has finally arrived when we must start unbundling the European Union so that different groups of members can co-operate flexibly in different areas of policy, all within the constant nexus of the single market. Areas of policy that are of purely domestic concern should be ring-fenced or reserved exclusively for national Governments. That arrangement should be enshrined in national constitutions, which in the United Kingdom would entail an Act of Parliament guaranteeing national sovereignty in specified internal areas.
The institutions of the European Union must be overhauled to reverse the current one-way drift to federalism. The Commission should be reduced to the role of a civil service, and the European Court must stop making law on the hoof. The European Parliament should be prevented from competing with national Parliaments for power. Last but not least, all articles that provide for monetary union should be removed from the treaties so that a single currency could come about only by evolution and with the full consent of all participating countries.
I believe that the whole nation would rejoice to hear the Government endorse a message of national sovereignty, of national self-confidence and the reassertion of the Conservative party as the only truly national party in British politics.

Mr. Denis MacShane: We have heard three speeches tonight—one for Europe from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), one for the nation from the Leader of the Opposition, and one for and to his party from the Prime Minister. If I put myself in the position of any other member of the


European Union, or of its newspapers or of its politicians, and went through the Prime Minister's speech looking for some guidance or direction, I should find none.
On a Euro-currency the Prime Minister said, "Yes, maybe, not sure, wait and see." On a referendum he said, "Possibly, could be." He said something strong about defence, but I am not sure whether our friends and partners in NATO would be quite as keen as the Prime Minister seems to be to regard Britain as the Gurkhas or the Spartans of Europe in exchange for being left alone to pursue our own course in so many other areas.
A key part of the debate has been about a single European currency, although more properly under the treaty we should be talking about economic and monetary union. We have not heard much this evening about the aspects of economic union that go far beyond the simple, single market, free trade area that is the lowest common denominator uniting members of the Conservative party.
The debate has been extremely interesting, and listening to it has made me realise that the Conservative party, or some of its members, oppose economic and monetary union because it requires a pooling of sovereignty. They believe in the mythical concept of a currency of which this country must under no circumstances lose control.
If the British currency were so powerful and of such great value, and if in the past 15 years it had maintained a common value against any other currency for more than 18 or 20 months, there might be some sense in that argument. But the plain fact is that since 1979 our pound has been the sick man on the roller coaster of other world currencies. Some Labour Members demand the right to devalue, saying that the weapon of devaluation should always be in the armoury of a national Government. I tell them, and some Conservative Members, too, that devaluation was, is and always will be the soft option.
The hard option—the socialist option, or at least the social democratic option—is to remake our labour market and our economy on the basis of partnership, of industry and of fairly distributed growth to ensure, as in Germany and in the dynamic Asian economies, that we become a world beater rather than a country whose companies are taken over one by one and whose banks collapse when some wide boy from Watford goes on a spree in Singapore.
In a nutshell, I am a hard currency and cheap money man; I favour a hard currency outside and low interest rates inside. I am glad to say that, after many deviations, that is a policy for which I hope the Labour party now stands.
However, we must go beyond the currency question, because the historic duty of 300 years of British statespersonship has been to ensure that there does not develop on the continent a military, an ideological or a religious bloc so powerful and predominant that it reduces our capacity for independent and sovereign manoeuvre.
I tell both my colleagues and Conservative Members that with the formation of a Franco-German deutschmark bloc—surely that will come—there will exist exactly such an economic hegemonic unit that will control so much of the European economy that from the people who will then be running Europe the message will come to Britain, as an offshore island with an offshore currency, that the line has been determined and that Britain can play no part in determining what that line should he.
A point that has not be raised much today concerns the present fundamental democratic deficit in Europe. Yes, the people of this country and of the other European nations are unsure of the direction in which they are being taken. The answer to that problem is not to opt out again and again but to make the procedures of Europe more transparent and to make the Commission, whether it is a civil service or consists of former Ministers, far more accountable and to put it under democratic control.
That will mean accepting that we must tackle the problem of the free movement of people, which is a fundamental part of the more integrated European model that we are trying to create. The free movement of people, which has been wickedly confused with the question of immigration from outside the European Union, is very precious to Europe. We cannot have the free movement of goods and capital without the free movement of peoples, and anybody who pretends otherwise and puts up border patrols and road blocks at every port, road and tunnel into the UK will find that if that is how we treat our partners' people, they may start treating our goods in a similar way.

Mr. Michael Shersby: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the citizens of the European Union moving about freely within the Union, and that is one thing. There are 5.5 million people inside the European Union from other countries. Is he suggesting that they should be able to move about freely within the Union and come to the UK without restriction?

Mr. MacShane: If Europe recreates the controls over all roads and methods of transport which it had immediately after the war, it will be a disaster. If Britain alone recreates or overemphasises those controls, the rest of Europe will not necessarily be happy when dealing with other areas such as the movement of goods, services and capital.
The point has been put that the IGC is simply a minor tidying-up affair and the Prime Minister said that, in due course, the Government will put the proposals to the House. He may be indulging in some wishful thinking, because the IGC will have to look at the substantial question of how European nations—those now in the EU and those seeking to join—relate to each other. Every enlargement of the European Union has led not to a loosening of relations, but to a tightening of them. If we want the free movement of goods, capital and people, we need regulations.
There is an idea that 27 countries could exercise a veto over all the issues. We know which issues are important to us, but other issues are important to other countries. What if Poland, for example, said that it would veto any changes or reforms to the common agricultural policy? Placing the veto on a pedestal outside the specific area of military or defence co-operation is extremely dangerous. That will not bring the Europe which the majority of Members want. It would create a conglomeration of principalities, like Germany in the 17th century.
The only way forward is through dialogue and partnership with our partner countries, between all sectors of our society and—above all—with the workers and employees who have so far been excluded by the Government from the European debate. That dialogue and partnership is not available from the Conservative party, and only a change in Government can deliver it.

Mr. David Martin: I cannot remember when I last spoke on European matters in the House. In recent years, I have been closer than some to the trials of the Government, who have often wrestled with a party and a Parliament rightly sensitive to the increasing impact of the European Union on British interests in crucial spheres of our domestic policies. Animal exports and immigration and border controls are merely two examples currently in the news.
The European Union also has elements which are ambitious to gather to themselves defence and foreign policy matters. Among those who describe themselves as positive about the European Union, there is bewilderment that people do not share their enthusiasm about the benefits of our membership. They blame the Government for not being positive enough, when heaven knows, the case has been put by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and by many other Ministers for many years.
What obscures the advantages of our membership is that there is a pervading sense of being carried along at a forced pace towards European political union without any hope—which in the event proves to be real—of having significant allies in the European Union on crucial occasions to arrest the process.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech that there are many in Europe—there are some in the House—who do not want to arrest that process at all. They speak of the destiny of a united Europe, in the sense of one people, one state. They are disdainful and dismissive of concerns about sovereignty, nationhood and the major constitutional changes that are required. It is like a faith to them. There have been such visionaries before. Theirs is an old concept in modern form.
Whether we like it or not, the question of a single currency in the context of the Maastricht treaty is plainly set to dominate the European agenda in a way which will dwarf the "will we-won't we" debates which preceded our entry into the ERM. The Prime Minister was right in accepting that a single currency is more than an economic or business matter, but that it has serious constitutional and political consequences. It would be, of course, an enormous step towards political union, just as the single market has taken us inevitably further down the centralist road.
The opt-out has been negotiated, but that begs the question—which will not go away, as 1999 grows nearer—whether the Government will exercise that opt-out or recommend that we participate fully in the single currency in 1999, less than four years away.
Why should the Cabinet have to pretend to be united on this great subject? We know that some Cabinet members have no objection in principle to signing up, and we know that some do object in principle. Throughout the ages, all Cabinets have found difficulty on such matters. All Cabinets and Governments are composed of the principled, the more flexible; the bright, the pedestrian; the cautious, the impetuous; and are as subject to folly and wisdom, sound judgment and profound misjudgment as any body of people thrown together by caprice, merit, fortune, sycophancy or necessity.
There is no way that any Government—whatever the Leader of the Opposition may naively believe—in this Parliament or the next can be united on the question of a single currency, when the question whether to opt in or out will have to be decided before 1999.
I wish that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would announce now that he is still of the view that he expressed to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee when Chancellor of the Exchequer in July 1990—that a single currency would involve a
transfer of sovereignty from the UK Parliament of a sort neither Government nor Parliament would find themselves able to accept".
I recognise that we as a party are as split as Labour is—and most certainly would be in government—on such a question.
Although I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and others have said, I would say that—as with Balfour, who was faced with the equally explosive tariff reform question before the 1910 general election—the best way forward for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister lies in promising a referendum. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend believes that, but has not yet found the moment to say so.
The mechanism that I would prefer would begin with a vote in Parliament. Then, if Parliament voted to join a single currency—only if it so voted—a referendum would ensue.
Finally, despite the Government's self-inflicted minority voting position in the House, I hope that they will achieve a majority tonight with the help of the Whipless. [HON. MEMBERS: "The witless?"] I said the Whipless.
If I were the "Chief Whipless"—that position is unenviable, and is a sort of parliamentary Moloch—I would recommend that course upon my colleagues. That is not only because I want to see the Whip restored to all of them without preconditions as soon as possible—a quiet letter from the Chief Whip would suffice—but because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has moved as far as reasonably can be expected at present. The rebels, or the Whipless, have had a real and lasting effect on that. In addition, the experience has proved salutary for the Government. Since removal of the Whip from so many, they have found control of the agenda even more difficult than usual.
All Conservative Members who see disunity as the main threat to our fortunes and as doing the work of opposition—work that official Opposition Members are incapable of doing, as we witnessed in all its glory today with either their people or their policies—must hope that harmony will be restored in the Government's victory tonight.

9 pm

Mr. Thomas Graham: Earlier today we heard the Prime Minister, who was going to make a statement to the nation and make it clear to the rebels why they should back the Government tonight. Our motion is that
this House does not support Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the European Union and does not believe it promotes the interests of the British people.


The past 15 years have shown that the Conservative Government are totally incapable of managing the country. They have sent the wrong signals to the rest of the world and especially to the people in Europe. They have an absolute xenophobia—something that the Opposition and the rest of the nation must reject. I have always believed that British people are not anti-foreigners. We welcome all cultural divisions.
When I hear the Conservative rebels and look at the divisions on that side of the House I find it unbelievable. Who would believe that the Prime Minister is coming here tonight to plead with his nine rebels? He called one of them "barmy" in November 1993. Not long after that, in early 1995, he said that they were very "conservative", and I quite agree. Then one of those barmy rebels said:
I would be extremely surprised about the manhood of any of them who didn't refuse to retake the Whip. I think most of my male colleagues are men who can be trusted and we are staunch patriotic Conservatives. We are one group of people that have been foolishly treated by the very immature people who are running the country.
The rebels were talking about their own Government. They have put in place this Government and the Cabinet to run the country and they are calling them an immature Government. I fully agree with the statement by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—this is an immature Government.
We have seen a divided nation—the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer—a divided Government and one unbelievably divided party. The Government cannot see any direction in which to go. They have no hope for Britain and are trying to make some arrangements, but we must remember that we joined the market. In those days, I was an anti-marketeer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Hon. Members may say, "Ah!" but when I was a young kid and used to be wild and run across the road, my mother told me, "Listen son, if you keep doing that you'll get knocked down." I have changed my mind and I do not run across the road now. So, some of us do make decisions and I am telling the Government that it is time for them to change their minds. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. Many of us do in immaturity things that we do not do with experience.
The Conservative Government have had 15 years, but they are so inexperienced and immature that they are running Britain down in the eyes of Europe and our competitors because they are no longer making Britain great. They are making us fools in the eyes of the world.
I believe that we should go for a single currency and I believe in monetary union. That is the way forward for the people whom I represent and look after. I am sure that if we went among the business folk in my constituency and asked the ordinary men and women, they would agree. We are in Europe. We have paid for membership of the club. Let us get the best deal possible. Let us sit at the management table and not go with the cop-out and the opt-out that the Government back.
Today, the Prime Minister faced in every direction and he sat on the fence. You know what happens if you sit on a fence too long—you get the sorest backside ever. The way that they are carrying on, this Government are going to get one big kick up the backside at the next general election.
We have also heard about the fast track, the slow track and every track. I will tell the Minister this—if you walk in the middle of the road, you end up getting knocked down. The Government have to make decisions for our

people. One decision that they could have reached, which would have got the backing of the nation, was to support the social chapter. I see Conservative Members smiling, but in my constituency the unemployed people are not smiling.
I remember when the referendum took place and the Tories were marching up and down the country telling the workers to vote to join the Common Market. I remember the promises that they made—everything was going to be rosy, there would he new jobs, pensions and holidays and our health scene would improve because we would have a big market. I remember the days when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the others were travelling the world and telling us how good it would be. When they got an opportunity to sign the social chapter, however, they knocked it back and let working-class men and women in this country down because they were not prepared to put their money where their mouth is and back the ordinary men and women who make this country and who produce. Those men and women want to he in the market, and they want to get a benefit from it.
Clearly, the Government's role is to iron out the difficulties and to manage the country's affairs with those other countries. Let them come to good sense and arrange them. When we join a club we all participate and take part in its functions, but if the club has something the matter with it, yes, we argue and debate and try to get a consensus arrangement. This Government have abandoned that. They do not want to sit at the table, they want to sh—I was going to use another phrase—[Laughter.] Let me put it this way, they want to spill a drink on the table. They do not want to contribute in the way that we expect a Government to do.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has considered a referendum. I have always supported referendums and have never seen them to be a weakening of anyone's position. Occasionally, we have to go to the country and give the people the right to vote and to make decisions. It is appalling that in this House we think that ordinary men and women cannot make up their minds, that they are all thick and dummies. We are the biggest dummies and this Government is one of the worst in the past 15 years. Why do they not listen to the wishes of the people, have a general election now and let in a Labour Government, who will meaningfully discuss and debate and take Britain on to better things with our European partners?

Mr. Robin Cook: At the start of the debate, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) lamented the fact that the Government never said anything positive about membership of the European Union. Had he stayed to hear the rest of the debate, he would have heard excellent speeches explaining positive reasons why Britain must remain in the European Union from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I confess that none of those speeches quite managed the vigour and clarity of language of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). The whole House is grateful that he accepted his mother's advice and stopped running across the road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) made a telling point about the nature of the open debate that we have heard in the House this evening when he pointed out that it had shown up Conservative Members' shift in favour of Euro-scepticism. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), whose position on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee makes his view especially significant, made it plain that he was against a single currency in principle. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), whose constituency I know quite well, came out clearly and said that he was in favour of wholesale repatriation of policies generally; then, with a flying change of leg in his logic, he appealed to all Euro-sceptics to vote in support of the Government's European policies.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) also made it plain where he stood in relation to Europe and why he believed that the rest of the party should join him rather than him rejoining the rest of the party. He referred to letters that he received signed by disillusioned Conservatives. Labour Members also receive that kind of letter and the hon. Gentleman deludes himself if he thinks that, by playing a nationalist card at the next election, all those disillusioned Conservatives will forgive the Government for having wrecked their families' domestic budgets over the past three years.
However, the debate has revealed a delusion that appears to be more widely held on the Conservative Benches, which is that the Labour party supports a political super-state in Europe and a federal Europe—an argument sometimes put forward by the same people who say that we have no policies on Europe. That version of Labour's policies bears as much relation to reality as their giant, inflatable versions of our spending plans. Let me remove that apparent confusion so that Conservative Members do not, through genuine misunderstanding, mislead their constituents again.
Labour does not support a federal Europe. On the contrary, we recognise that the nations of Britain have a powerful and healthy sense of their identity. Indeed, that sense of a shared identity is one of the important sources of social cohesion and commitment to social justice within the nation. That is why we shall take no lectures on the importance of national identity from a Conservative party that has taken every possible step over the past 15 years to undermine the social cohesion of our nations and has left a Britain more divided by inequality than at any time this century. Nor will we take lectures from the Government on the importance of subsidiarity in Brussels when they refuse to practise subsidiarity in Britain.
In the past six months, I have frequently travelled on the continent and I have met a number of politicians there who are perplexed at finding that they are lectured on the dangers of a centralised Europe by a Government who have built the most centralised state in Europe, abolished whole local authorities and packed quangos from Land's End to John O'Groats with appointments from Whitehall.
Only last Friday, the Prime Minister came to Scotland—indeed, he came to my constituency—to tell us that subsidiarity was not for the Scots. The Prime Minister cannot preach the importance of national identity in Leiden and deny it in Livingston.
I assure Conservative Members that we do not intend to support a Europe that is as centralised as the Britain that they have created. Our vision is of a Community of free member states, associating on the basis not of surrendering national identity but of sharing national interests. Having listened to Conservative Members, it is not clear that they all recognise that we have a common interest to share with the rest of Europe. Over the past months, news bulletins have been studded with gems from Conservative Members suggesting that they are not prepared to share a taxi ride with our partners in Europe, never mind our economic future.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who graced us with his presence earlier this evening, called on Britain to get off the escalator and, if the rest of Europe insists on continuing to go up on it, to wave it good luck and goodbye. I am bound to say that it provides an insight into why the economic management of the past 15 years has been marked by such extraordinary incompetence that the last Chancellor thinks that Britain has an economic future by going it alone outside Europe.
That brings me to the other context for this debate. Alongside the strong sense of national identity in Britain, we must also recognise the powerful move to a global economy in which industrial production is now not the property of any one nation state but is internationalised, in which world-wide sourcing by companies has meant that trade has expanded twice as fast as output. Throughout the world—in Latin America, in the Asian Pacific area and in north America—the fastest-growing industrialised countries are coming together to form immense trading blocs.
Against the background of that dramatic growth in the global economy, I marvel that Conservative Members appear to think that the best way to prepare Britain for the challenge of that world is by being as difficult as possible to our nearest neighbours. Britain needs Europe because it provides our largest market, because it provides the largest reason for inward investment to this country and because it gives us the clout of a large trading bloc in negotiating with the rest of the world. The reason why we support Britain's membership of the European Union is that it is vital to exports from the country, to investment in the country and to the jobs of the working people of the country.
That is why we believe that Britain's role is that of an independent member nation state of Europe, co-operating to make a success of Europe. It is what Lord Howe described last month as "Labour's balanced approach" on Europe—I assume that he meant that as a compliment. Lord Howe has been much less complimentary about the European policy of the Conservative party to which he belongs, which he described as
dragged into a ghetto of sentimentality and self-delusion".
When the Prime Minister came to office, he made a very different speech from the one that he made today. In that speech in 1991. he said that he wanted to put Britain at the heart of Europe. Today, he told us that he was prepared to be isolated in Europe. It is just as well that he is prepared to be isolated in Europe, because he heads a Government stuffed with Ministers who delight in being isolated in Europe.
When the Employment Secretary was asked at Davos about the Government's agenda for the intergovernmental conference, he replied that their agenda was to veto everyone else's agenda—no to any change in the


European constitution, no to any change in the European Parliament, no to ending Britain's right to say no. That was not only a negative approach but a triple negative approach.
I have to suggest to the Foreign Secretary—as a negotiator, he probably understands—that the problem with always saying no is that one ends up being left out of the game. There can be no more dramatic illustration of the price that one pays for a strategy of isolation than the fact that, in the recent argument about the access of Spain to our fishing waters, Britain could not persuade a single ally to vote with us to block such a damaging change to our national interest. Isolation could not prevent Spain gaining access to our fishing waters. Isolation ensured that Britain could not prevent Spain doing so.
Being isolated will not secure the fundamental changes that are needed in the common agricultural policy, the costs of which have doubled under the present Government, and which is the source of most of the fraud in Europe. Every year, that fraud costs European taxpayers losses of the same amount that led to the collapse of Barings bank.
We shall obtain those fundamental reforms only if we build alliances, if we form partnerships. We cannot do it from a position of isolation. To be sure, when the Prime Minister vetoed the appointment of Mr. Dehaene, he reduced Britain to a position of splendid isolation.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman speaks about isolation, yet in his earlier remarks he spoke about the importance of inward investment to the European Union and the fact that there was a great deal coming to this country. Does he believe that we are isolated from Europe in terms of the social chapter? Surely it is for the reason that we have not signed up to the social chapter that so much investment comes to this country, rather than going to the continent of Europe.

Mr. Cook: I can absolutely confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we are isolated over the social chapter. Indeed, the only party in Europe that agrees with the Conservative party's opposition to the social chapter is the National Front of France. That is the degree to which the Conservative Government have formed alliances over the social chapter. I shall discuss later what we believe should be done in relation to the social chapter.
I was about to ask the Foreign Secretary what possible national interest was served by isolating us over the appointment of Mr. Dehaene. He merely swapped Mr. Dehaene for Mr. Santer, who immediately said that he came from the same party and shared the same idea of Europe. The truth is that the veto was used on that occasion not to promote any national interest but solely so that the Prime Minister could prove that he was tough on Europe—because the only way he can unite the Conservative party is by being divisive inside Europe.

Mr. James Clappison: In the interests of the clarity about which the hon. Gentleman's party leader spoke earlier, will the hon. Gentleman now come clean and admit what the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would not admit—that the European socialists' manifesto commitment to make qualified majority voting the rule means weakening our national veto?

Mr. Cook: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not stay through the debate. Had he done so, he would have

heard my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) quoting our manifesto on the veto; but, for the avoidance of doubt, I am happy to correct the hon. Gentleman again so that he does not again mislead his constituents. We said:
we have always insisted … on maintaining the principle of unanimity for decision-making in areas such as fiscal and budgetary policy, foreign and security issues, changes to the Treaty of Rome and other areas of key national interest.
I hope that we can bury once and for all the canard that Labour is in favour of dropping the veto.
I am happy to say that the whole Labour party is united on that. The Prime Minister's problem is that he cannot put Britain at the heart of Europe because he heads a party that is split from top to bottom about whether it wants to be at any part of the anatomy of Europe.
Of all the quotations from Cabinet Ministers in the trenches of the dispute over Europe in the past three months, the one that I most relish came from the Chancellor, who said:
We've run out of ways of making it clear there aren't any divisions.
Cabinet Ministers have had plenty of opportunities to make it clear. Never have so many studios been open to so many Cabinet Ministers on the same topic. Tory Ministers used to air their differences in code—after they appeared, television commentators had to be wheeled in to interpret what they had been saying. Now, the divisions come neatly packaged as soundbites and headlines. Whole photocopiers have expired in the basement of Labour party headquarters trying to keep up with the recycling of conflicting quotations from the Cabinet.
The Prime Minister addressed the House for a whole hour, half of it on the single currency. At the end of it all, we still do not know whether he agrees with the Chancellor that those who reject monetary union because it leads to political union are being too simplistic or whether he agrees with the Chancellor's No. 2, the Chief Secretary, who is apparently one of those simplistic people. As I understood the Prime Minister's speech, we are meant to conclude that he agrees with both of them—or, at any rate, he wants to keep his options open to agree with both of them, depending on the nature and style of their speeches.
The Prime Minister made a passionate speech for the don't knows. When my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) intervened to ask whether, if the economic conditions were right, the constitutional arguments would keep the Prime Minister out of the single currency, the Prime Minister replied that he did not know where my hon. Friend had been for the previous 10 minutes. The truth is that he had been listening to the Prime Minister.
The really interesting feature of the Prime Minister's speech was that three or four times he was given the opportunity to back the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a single currency would not be a threat to the nation state. Not once did he take that opportunity. It seems a simple enough question: does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his Chancellor, given that he has assured us that the Cabinet is united? If it is so united, why cannot the Prime Minister, in the spirit of unity, say that he agrees with his Chancellor? I understand why not: he cannot say that he backs the Chancellor, because to do so would be to offend his own Euro-rebels. After expelling all nine of them only four months ago because


they did not agree with his policy, he is now reduced to avoid announcing a policy in order to reduce the area that they have for disagreement with him.
I am bound to say that, compared with the Prime Minister's speech, the Euro-rebels' manifesto is a model of decisiveness, conviction and clarity. At least we know where they stand. They stand for a substantial repatriation of decision making. They stand for abolishing the elected European Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is not just policy of the Euro-rebels. Apparently, a large chunk of the Conservative party agrees with this. Those people stand for reducing the powers of the European Court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, there we are. They want to see the foreign and security policy removed from the competence of the Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have to tell the Foreign Secretary that at Labour party conferences this is the moment when we call for a card vote.
If all those hon Members who are agreeing with the Euro-rebel manifesto intend tonight to vote with the Government, would they help us by pointing out which of the commitments are now shared by the Government with which they are voting tonight? If the Foreign Secretary wants them to vote tonight, perhaps he could tell the House which of those commitments will be in his negotiating brief for next year's intergovernmental conference. The rest of us are entitled to know. When he goes to the IGC, he goes to act for Britain, not just for the Tory party. That is why the agenda should be determined in the interests of the 60 million people of Britain, not the prejudices of a handful of Tory Members of Parliament.
I move to one clear example where the people of Britain are at present discriminated against because of those prejudices. We are, as has been helpfully pointed out, the only country in Europe where working people are denied the advantage of the social chapter—another area where the Prime Minister is prepared to be isolated in Europe, isolated by offering worse working conditions to the people whom he represents than can be obtained on the continent.
I heard the Prime Minister say in his speech that Europe was increasingly accepting our agenda of deregulation. That is a curious delusion since we are the only country that has opted out of the social regulations. It appears to be based on a view that he is in step and everyone else in the European continent is out of step. I should warn the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that not only are they out of step in Europe; increasingly they are out of step with their own backers in big business.
In the Queen's Speech debate, I pointed out to the House that United Biscuits, one of the all-time great donors to the Tory party, thought so little of the opt-out on the social chapter that it had been the first to form a works council in Britain. On cue for today's debate, yesterday Coats Viyella announced that it had also achieved an agreement to set up a works council—a company which has given £27,000 over four years to the Tory party, a company which was apparently prepared to be a donor to the Tory party but is not prepared at any price to buy its policy on the social chapter. Its chief executive said that that was a
sensible agreement which will he of competitive advantage to Coats Viyella.

The truth is that business knows that it will never compete on the basis of lower wages and worse working conditions. It will compete only on the basis of higher skills and higher technology. The bosses at the top of the industries that the Government have privatised have no intention of seeking competitiveness through lowering their wages, and they will not raise the commitment, the motivation, the skills of their work forces by telling them that they must achieve competitiveness through lower wages.
Labour will sign up for the social chapter. We will sign up for the social chapter because we believe that it is offensive that people employed by British companies in Britain should settle for fewer rights at work than people employed by those same British companies on the continent.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but it must be the last.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. [Interruption.] Regardless of the friend bit, which comes from being a barrister—we call everyone friend as a member of the Bar—why did the hon. Gentleman decide that he wishes to create large-scale unemployment through our accession to the social chapter in Europe?

Mr. Cook: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman explained why I was thought to be his hon. Friend. I was aware that the arguments that we are deploying here are compelling, but I had not anticipated that I had had quite that degree of success.
As to the increase in employment, the hon. Gentleman had better go back and discuss it with the chief executive of Coats Viyella, who pays the Conservative party and has come to the conclusion—he is right, of course—that if we want to be competitive, we achieve that competitiveness not by lowering wages, not by lowering working conditions, not by producing a casualised, demotivated work force, which would be a low-skill work force, but by building a work force who are committed, who are involved in their company and who have high skills.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No. Not even the promise that the hon. Gentleman might make to call me an hon. Friend will persuade me to give way on this occasion. I anticipate that his right hon. Friend will wish to make a speech.
The Labour party will sign up for the social chapter. We will sign up because it is in the interests of working people in Britain. We will sign up also because it will provide a clear demonstration that we will break with the opt-out mentality of the Government. It will show that we are prepared to play a full part as a full member of the European Union. It will establish that Britain once again can be taken seriously in Europe, because we will take Europe seriously. It will provide a flat contrast with the Government, who are incapable of covering up their divisions over Europe, of agreeing a strategy for Europe, and who are therefore incapable of negotiating for Britain in Europe.
Today's debate provided the Prime Minister with an opportunity to tell the country where the Government stood on the central question facing Europe. His speech proved that he did not even dare tell his own party where it stood. Such a Government do not deserve to remain in office. Such leadership does not deserve the support of the House.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): What the House has taken part in today is a new production of a fairly well-worn classic play. There have been some familiar figures in the cast, and some new ones too. There has been a remarkable dominance of Scottish voices during the debate. Perhaps that is because the producer is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, whatever his failings as an actor-manager, gave an entertaining, though insubstantial, contribution as an actor.
As often happens when people plan what they think is a clever debate long in advance, it does not usually work out quite that way. Of course there is a discussion about Europe, which runs through all political parties in this House and in this country—and not only this country—but the Labour party is singularly ill-equipped to mount this debate and this dramatic production today.
As has been pointed out—though I think rather too gently—by my right hon. and hon. Friends, over the past 35 years the Labour party has changed its policy on Europe six times. I am not talking about the elegant nuances of difference, with which Conservative Members are familiar; I am talking about six changes, each of 180 degrees. It happens that during that time there have been six Labour leaders, but I must tell those who like a simple plot to their play that, disappointingly, there is no parallel between the two facts. There have been six leaders and six turns of 180 degrees, but some leaders have had more than one policy.
Lord Wilson set the pace. He had three policies during his time as leader of the Labour party: out, in, out. That is clearly the model that the current Leader of the Opposition is emulating. I am not sure of the number of months for which he has led the party, but he has already moved from his original view that we must come out to the view that we must do whatever is proposed in Brussels. We listened to his speech carefully; but if he listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston, or studied what the hon. Gentleman has been saying on television and radio, he would find that the hon. Gentleman is now looking desperately for another fence on which to sit.
Anyone who studies the six fundamental changes to which I have referred will find that only one thread runs through them: the thread of inconsistency. Why? Because the only consistent thought is of scurrying around for the sake of tactical advantage. Having lived through a good many years of this, I am driven to the conclusion that the Labour party—with one or two notable exceptions—does not actually know or care about Europe or European policy. Labour Members see Europe simply as a board on which they can play little parliamentary games.
As I have said, I have lived through this for some years. Over and over again, I have seen the overriding Labour party desire for some form of words on the Order Paper

enabling Labour to gather into the Division Lobby people of all shades of opinion. All that they need share is some criticism of the Government's policy. Labour is at it again tonight: it wants to lure the leader of the Liberal party—enthusiastic for a single currency—into the same Lobby as some of my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members. It does not matter what people believe in; they are all welcome in the Labour Lobby, provided that somewhere among their views is a criticism of the Government.
We lived through all this during the debates on Maastricht. I became familiar with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) when he was the actor-manager, and I must say that I developed a certain admiration for his skill and subtlety, damnable and opportunistic though it was on all occasions. Now the hon. Gentleman has been packed off to shadow the Secretary of State for Scotland and to answer the West Lothian question, and we have a different actor-manager. This, I must say, is much less subtle. Here we have a trap with "TRAP" marked clearly on it, plonked in the middle of the motorway; and we are invited to walk into it.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Livingston obtained part of his education in the kirk. Had he done so, he would be familiar with the book of Proverbs, which states:
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
That is what the hon. Gentleman has tried to do, but he has done it in the presence of a good many fairly wise and wily birds on both sides of the House.
Speaking of wise and crafty birds brings me naturally to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He intervened in the Prime Minister's speech, and I feel that the question that he put—now that we have reflected on it—requires a fuller answer. I believe he referred to horizontal transfer of sovereignty between member states. He knows, or I hope that he knows, that there is no proposal for joint authority—for horizontal transfer of sovereignty—in the framework document. He also knows, and I am happy to confirm, our view—which has long been clear—that there can be no change in the sovereignty of Northern Ireland except at the wish of the greater number of the people who live there. If that is the assurance that he wanted—and I think that it is—I gladly give it.
There have been some notable contributions to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) chided Ministers for not setting out the advantages of membership. I thought that that was a little hard because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did exactly that in his speech. When I come to enlargement, I shall deal with what my right hon. Friend said on that subject.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) urged us—we need no urging—to put forward positive ideas at the intergovernmental conference next year on how the structures and procedures of the Union's institutions can work better. He listed the Council, the Commission, the courts and the Parliament. All those existing institutions are clearly necessary, but we believe that they could work better. We certainly think that the Commission should do less, and do it better.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made thoughtful speeches which need to be taken into account in any analysis from


upstairs on where the Conservative parliamentary party now stands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made a rumbustious and welcome speech in which he made the case for a referendum on a single currency. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). I think that everybody understands the force of those arguments, which are deeply constitutional. Both my hon. Friends will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about keeping that choice before us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) spoke along lines that we could have anticipated, but which were nevertheless clear. He acknowledged what is certainly true: that there is no difference in objectives or policy between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the rest of us and himself. The question is one of timing and tactics. My hon. Friend quoted article 7a and agreed that it was accompanied by a general declaration which made it clear that nothing in the Single European Act would prevent member states from taking necessary action against illegal immigration.
The legal position is not quite as straightforward as my hon. Friend suggested. I refer him to the opinion of, say, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, a Law Lord, in a Select Committee of the House of Lords. In any case there is a clear commitment by the Heads of Government of the time—1985—which included the present Federal Chancellor and the current President of the European Commission on the point.
We have sustained for 10 years without challenge or difficulty immigration controls at our ports and airports. The Prime Minister said today, as he has said before and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, that we shall take whatever steps are necessary to protect our frontier controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested a specific tactic: that 10 months before the opening of the intergovernmental conference, we should put that on the agenda. There are disadvantages and risks in that tactic, and we do not need to decide on it now. However, the undertaking given again today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stands.
Several hon. Members referred to two themes that have run through the debate. The first of them is flexibility. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) spoke of that as if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had invented the idea in a fit of pique or of determination to be isolated. That is absolute nonsense. We have flexibility; there is flexibility in defence. I have just visited Austria, Sweden and Denmark, which are not full members of the Western European Union, whereas we are. In the debate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made specific proposals about defence and stated and showed that Britain was in the lead in that subject. Others are not, and others may not wish to be included. It is a perfect example of the flexibility about which the Prime Minister spoke, and so it is with frontiers. Britain and Ireland are island countries and we naturally have different ideas about frontier controls from those in countries with land frontiers. Why is that wrong? Why is that an aberration? It is part of the essential flexibility of Europe. Those who deny that flexibility are denying something that is not passing, not an aberration, but is an essential part of Europe. It is a

natural feature of what we are trying to do. The United States of America is not the good model for the future of Europe.
The Leader of the Opposition seems quite astray on qualified majority voting. He seemed to suppose that there was not any and that we were blocking its introduction. Of course there is. Those who say that the common agricultural policy could not be reformed without QMV seem to ignore that QMV applies to the common agricultural policy. What the Prime Minister talked about is further extension of QMV, which we oppose.
The hon. Member for Livingston, with a jutting beard gesture of which we are getting rather fond, became extremely indignant because the Prime Minister suggested, modestly and quietly, that when the European socialist manifesto, co-authored by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), said that QMV should be the rule, that must mean an undermining of the veto. The hon. Member for Livingston became very indignant and said,"No, no." He read again the domestic Labour party manifesto on the subject. All he proved by that indignation is that the Labour party speaks with two voices, both official. Labour is bound, as I understand it, by the European socialist manifesto, which is the nature of European socialism. The right hon. Member for Copeland was shadow Foreign Secretary when he put his signature on it. Those two completely contradictory voices entirely justify the criticism that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made.
The main point that I should like to dwell on is what I believe to be the heart of the matter.

Mr. Lamont: Will my right hon. Friend address the question that I put to the Prime Minister earlier, to which I do not believe he gave a clear answer? I asked whether the Government believe that monetary union will lead to political union or whether they believe, as Lord Lawson said the other day, that one cannot have one without the other? I believe that this is the issue of principle. It is two years since we began negotiations on the Maastricht treaty and that is an issue of principle, not of timing.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is one of the greatest experts on the subject because, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he negotiated the opt-out. I have always admired the skill with which they both did that. I was sitting in admiration in another room at the time.
I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered clearly the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has just made. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he was absolutely clear that it was right to preserve for this country the freedom, that he and my right hon. Friend had together obtained for us, with some difficulty, at Maastricht. He went on to answer the specific question put by my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I simply repeat what the Prime Minister said. He answered the question clearly in his speech.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Foreign Secretary will not answer that question, will he, in the remaining 10 minutes of the debate, answer the question that has now been asked five times in the past five hours? Does he agree


with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a single currency would not threaten the nation state and, if so, can he explain why his Prime Minister cannot say so?

Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister answered that question and I agreed with the answer given. The Prime Minister went on to make a point, which I think is overwhelming common sense: this choice of a single currency or not is not before the House. It will not be before the House for four or five years at least. Other countries are committed to accept, regardless of the circumstances at the time, but we are not because we have the freedom of the opt-out negotiated at Maastricht. If and when that choice comes to us, the Government will take that choice and recommend it to Parliament in the light of not just one set of facts but of all the facts which are valid at that time—the facts at the time, not the hunch at present.
Of course, there is a constitutional question; of course, there are economic questions, and the Prime Minister went into these in some detail. The only sensible course is not to pontificate about this now but to weigh up the choice when and if we need to take it as a nation.

Mr. Cook: rose—

Mr. Hurd: No, I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
It seems to me an entirely sensible course to which the great majority of people in this country would adhere.
I now come to what I believe is the basic flaw in the critique of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal party. The Leader of the Opposition spoke as if there was only one model for Europe and the question was whether we moved forward in some direction which he regarded as inexorable or whether we retreated and turned our back on Europe. I entirely reject that choice; that is not what it is about. There is not just one model. There is a choice of directions, and we are among the people who make the choice. It is the essence of our policy that we should work with others to make the choice which has not already been engineered but which is a choice with which we can feel at ease.
This is a debate that we have had, with variations, several times before. I think that there is an opportunity now—the Labour party has given us that opportunity—to draw a line under divisions and discontents, which have been very real. There are rancours belonging to the past and they are certainly very real. They belong to the debate on Maastricht, but there is a danger in constantly fighting and refighting old battles. Obviously, there is a political danger here—there is no doubt about that—but there is another point which is perhaps not so familiar.
As I said, I have just returned from visiting Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Germany. I agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). In all the countries that I visited—and this was not true before Maastricht—there is debate on the issues that have come forward in this country. Before Maastricht, we had the sensation—it was well founded—that ours was the only country in which there was a debate. Now there is a debate in all the countries that I visit and, in some, of them, there is a lively interest in the ideas that we propose.
However, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends and the House that interest in these ideas is weakened and is not going to be effective if it appears that they come out of domestic division here at home. This I find infinitely

frustrating because I am quite sure that the ideas that we are working out and putting forward are the right ideas for Europe and I do not want to see that frustrated because they appear to arise from domestic controversy at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us one."] That is precisely what I am about to do, and I have seven minutes in which to do so.
What will be happening next year? Three things will be happening more or less at the same time. No doubt there will be a continuing discussion about a single currency. There will be preparations for the enlargement of the European Union. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup on this point. I do not think that we should be grudging about enlargement. The countries of central and eastern Europe have to be able to comply with the treaty and meet the conditions about competition, about the single market. They will not, of course, find that easy and they will not be able to do it at once, but they are political democracies—they have free elections. Their problems arise from the free market. We should give them time, but we should encourage them and we should not say to them that they are not really European countries, that they are not really entitled to join the European Union because we are too busy sorting our own ideas. We should encourage them to join. That process will go ahead next year and the year after.
Alongside that process, as the Prime Minister said and as we said at Question Time today, must go changes—drastic changes—in the common agricultural policy and in the structural funds. One cannot possibly imagine extending, enlarging the European Union and maintaining in its present form a common agricultural policy covering the farmers of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. That will be the second thing going on next year.
Thirdly, there will be the intergovernmental conference which will consider the structures that were established at Maastricht. As the Prime Minister said, I am absolutely clear that there will be no attempt from anybody to overturn, to destroy those three pillars and say that we must start again. That is not the mood of the Union at all.
We have the Community itself—the first pillar—the single market, from which this country benefits, the single commercial policy and the gradual dying away of state aids and protectionist devices. Of course there are fierce rearguard actions from the protectionists, and we read of the battles. We do not read, so much, when the battles end in success. We read of the efforts by the French to keep out our lamb, of the Germans to keep out our beef, of the French to keep our aircraft out of Orly airport. We do not always read that, actually, we won all those arguments because there was a single market, because there were rules and because in the end, however grudgingly, those rules had to be obeyed. That is one pillar.
Alongside that pillar is the co-operation in foreign and security policy and in home and justice matters. I shall send my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup the speech that I made in Berlin yesterday, which he had some difficulty in getting. I am in favour of co-operation in foreign policy, but I am not in favour of seeking to make that effective by majority vote. I contested that fiercely in the Maastricht negotiations—successfully—and would do so again. I do not believe


that we would achieve a more effective European foreign policy if we introduced majority voting and started trying to vote people down.
We have two highly successful institutions in Europe—NATO and the European Union. We have a queue of countries wanting to join both. It is in the fundamental interests of this country that the success of those institutions should not unravel. There are two ways, it seems to me, in which the European Union could unravel. One is that we could go back into a dangerous muddle of old rivalries, rumours of war, commerce and investment constantly interrupted by rows over tariffs and conflicting trade arrangements. If we went back downhill in that direction, just when the North American Free Trade Agreement is forming, just when Asia and the Pacific are coming together as an entity, just when Latin America is coming together, we would be moving right against the grain of the world. One way in which Europe could unravel is through cynicism and neglect. It could unravel if we were tolerant of fraud. It could unravel if we were unable to practise subsidiarity successfully.
Another way in which Europe could unravel is that it could try to go forward in a purely theoretical and philosophical way. There could be some great centralising movement, some talk of a great leap forward, but, in fact, it could be a leap forward into a bog. That is why I believe that Prime Minister Balladur is right to say that there is no point in reviving the anachronistic debate on federalism. A Europe of nations is working together as never before, working with the grain of history, with popular feeling. It is not a question of advancing or retreating on a road which is already engineered by others. It is a question of choosing the right road, forgetting our defeatism on that road, and putting our energy and commitment into the matter that way. After a year or two at this task, I am quite sure that that can be done and that our ideas of a Europe of nations can succeed. It is possible, it is right, and I ask the House, by rejecting the motion, to help us to succeed.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 319.

Division No. 92]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger


Alton, David
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Blunkett, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Boateng, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Austin-Walker, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Stephen


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Callaghan, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)





Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D N
Gunnell, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hain, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hanson, David


Chidgey, David
Hardy, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Church, Judith
Harvey, Nick


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clarke, Torn (Monklands W)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ann
Hodge, Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Corston, Jean
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Ingram, Adam


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanetlli)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Denham, John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keen, Alan


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Eastham, Ken
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Enright, Derek
Khabra, Piara S


Etherington, Bill
Kilfoyle, Peter


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fatchett, Derek
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Fisher, Mark
Litherland, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Livingstone, Ken


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Don (Bath)
Loyden, Eddie


Foulkes, George
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fraser, John
McAllion, John


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galbraith, Sam
McCartney, Ian


Galloway, George
McCrea, The Reverend William


Gapes, Mike
Macdonald, Calum


Garrett, John
McFall, John


George, Bruce
McGrady, Eddie


Gerrard, Neil
McKelvey, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McLeish, Henry


Godsiff, Roger
Maclennan, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNamara, Kevin


Gordon, Mildred
MacShane, Denis


Graham, Thomas
McWilliam, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Madden, Max


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maddock, Diana


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maginnis, Ken






Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mallon, Seamus
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe,
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stevenson, George


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mudie, George
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Olner, Bill
Timms, Stephen


O'Neill, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Touhig, Don


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Trimble, David


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Pickthall, Colin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pike, Peter L
Wallace, James


Pope, Greg
Walley, Joan


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Watson, Mike


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wigley, Dafydd


Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Raynsford, Nick
Wilson, Brian


Redmond, Martin
Winnick, David


Reid, Dr John
Wise, Audrey


Rendel, David
Worthington, Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wray, Jimmy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wright, Dr Tony


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Ray Powell and


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkins, Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John





Body, Sir Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fry, Sir Peter


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Sir Graham
Gillan, Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorst, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Couchman, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Critchley, Julian
Horam, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Devlin, Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dicks, Terry
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Duncan, Alan
Jenkin, Bernard


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jessel, Toby


Dunn, Bob
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Elletson, Harold
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knapman, Roger


Evennett, David
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Faber, David
Knight Greg (Derby N)


Fabricant, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knox, Sir David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Forman, Nigel
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forth, Eric
Legg, Barry






Leigh, Edward
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luff, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Mans, Keith
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thomason, Roy


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard



Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steve
Tredinnick, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trend, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trotter, Neville


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Willetts, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela



Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sackville, Tom
Mr. David Lightbown and


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 313.

Division No. 93]
[10.18 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Critchley, Julian


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ancram, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)



Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Elletson, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fabricant, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Sir Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Burns, Simon
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas


Butler, Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carrington, Matthew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carttiss, Michael



Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gill, Christopher


Churchill, Mr
Gillan, Cheryl


Clappison, James
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorst, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Colvin, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Congdon, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Conway, Derek
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth North)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn






Hague, William
Marlow, Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mates, Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Harris, David
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Haselhurst, Alan
Merchant, Piers


Hawkins, Nick
Mills, Iain


Hawksley, Warren
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayes, Jerry
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Heald, Oliver
Moate, Sir Roger


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hendry, Charles
Moss, Malcolm


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Horam, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Norris, Steve


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ottaway, Richard


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Paice, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jack, Michael
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jenkin, Bernard
Pickles, Eric


Jessel, Toby
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Key, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, Sir James
Richards, Rod


King, Rt Hon Tom
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knapman, Roger
Robathan, Andrew


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knox, Sir David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luff, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Maclean, David
Speed, Sir Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Madel, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink Dr Robert


Major, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whittingdale, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomason, Roy
Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Willetts, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilshire, David


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. David Lightbown and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Viggers, Peter



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Chidgey, David


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Church, Judith


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Alton, David
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Connarty, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Battle, John
Corbett, Robin


Bayley, Hugh
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corston, Jean


Beggs, Roy
Cousins, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cox, Tom


Bell, Stuart
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dafis, Cynog


Berry, Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Betts, Clive
Darling, Alistair


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Denham.John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Byers, Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Enright, Derek


Campbell-Savours, D N
Etherington, Bill


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Cann, Jamie
Ewing, Mrs Margaret






Fatchett, Derek
Lewis, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Litherland, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Livingstone, Ken


Flynn, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foulkes, George
McAllion, John


Fraser, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCartney, Ian


Galbraith, Sam
McCrea, The Reverend William


Galloway, George
Macdonald, Calum


Gapes, Mike
McFall, John


Garrett, John
McGrady, Eddie


George, Bruce
McKelvey, William


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maclennan, Robert


Godsiff, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mildred
McWilliam, John


Graham, Thomas
Madden, Max


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Maddock, Diana


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maginnis, Ken


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallon, Seamus


Gunnell, John
Mandelson, Peter


Hain, Peter
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Mike
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hardy, Peter
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Maxton, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael


Henderson, Doug
Meale, Alan


Hendron, Dr Joe
Michael, Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hinchliffe, David
Milburn, Alan


Hodge, Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Hoey, Kate
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Home Robertson, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoyle, Doug
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Murphy, Paul


Hutton, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Ingram, Adam
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
O'Hara, Edward


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Olner, Bill


Jamieson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Johnston, Sir Russell
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Parry, Robert


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Patchett, Terry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Keen, Alan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kirkwood, Archy
Radice, Giles


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Randall, Stuart





Raynsford, Nick
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Redmond, Martin
Straw, Jack


Reid, Dr John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Timms, Stephen


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Trimble, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Salmond.Alex
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Short, Clare
Watson, Mike



Welsh, Andrew


Simpson, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wiliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wilson, Brian


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Spearing, Nigel
Wray, Jimmy


Spellar, John
Wright Dr Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Ray Powell and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Gordon McMaster.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House rejects the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition towards Europe, which would destroy United Kingdom jobs, erode the United Kingdom's competitiveness in world markets, place new bureaucratic burdens on business and industry, destroy the veto and diminish the role of Europe's nation states and their national parliaments.

PETITIONS

Cot Deaths

Mr. David Jamieson: I wish to present a petition, the prime signatories to which are Julie Oakley, of my constituency, Karen James, of the Plymouth, Sutton constituency, and many people from your constituency of Plymouth, Drake, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The petition comes from a total of 17 parents who have lost their children in sudden infant cot deaths. They believe that their children died due to fire retardants in the cot mattresses and they call on the Government to undertake further research and to demand a further recall of mattresses containing antimony, phosphorus and arsenic.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of Members of the Plymouth Cot Death Action Group,


sheweth, That evidence has shown that cot mattresses containing fire retardants have caused antimony poisoning in some babies which may have been a factor in their sudden deaths.
Wherefore your Humble Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will commission further research into sudden infant death syndrome, and will ban the use of fire retardants in cot mattresses, and recall all cot mattresses containing fire retardant chemicals, such as antimony, phosphorus and arsenic.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Disabled People (Civil Rights)

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I rise to present a petition signed by 1,015 of my constituents, who were deeply angered last year when the Disabled Persons (Civil Rights) Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was talked out in the House. They are concerned this year to find that the Government may not make time available for the same Bill, this time introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
The petition reads as follows:
To the House of Commons. The petition of the constituents of York declares that disabled people are unfairly deprived of their basic civil rights in the United Kingdom. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to ensure civil rights for disabled people. And the petitioners remain, etc.
The petition is signed by John Keeper, the secretary of the National League of the Blind and Disabled in York and, as I say, by 1,014 other of my constituents.

To lie upon the Table.

Children's Homes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Ms Ann Coffey: In this debate I could probably say anything I liked about the physical standards, the care and staffing in unregistrable children's homes, the number of them in the country and the number of placements of children hundreds of miles away from home. I could say that the children being placed are the most disturbed and the most difficult. The Minister could not contradict me because the collation of data is extremely inadequate in every respect.
As the Minister is aware, I have pursued the subject of the debate through numerous parliamentary questions. Recently I have been trying to establish when the social services inspectorate study will be completed. The answer that I received was, "In due course." I hope that when it is completed, it will be published, if for no other reason than to prove me wrong in my belief that it will be as scathing about some of the standards of care as the one in the north-west was.
Following the report by the SSI in the north-west, the Department of Health issued a circular, LAC(93)(16), in August 1993, entitled "Practice guidance on the application of the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 in relation to small unregistrable children's homes". That guidance shows up the illogicality of the current situation in which children's homes of fewer than four children are not required to register, something to which I shall return in a moment.
What has come to be of great interest to me is the difference between an unregistrable children's home and care provided in a family setting as offered in some of the brochures of private agencies. The water in that area is becoming muddied.
On that point, the guidance says that where investigations reveal that the home offers care equivalent to close parental care provided on a 24-hour basis by one or two adults, consideration should be given to making the placement in accordance with Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991. Note the word "should". But why on earth should anyone bother? It is much easier to treat it as an unregistrable children's home rather than the expensive, protracted approval process for fostering.
If such homes with fewer than four children had to be registered, they would have to be treated either as children's homes or foster homes, and certainly could not be foster homes posing as children's homes, which is certainly happening at the moment.
On foster homes, let me quickly raise an issue with the Minister, which I think is related to unregistrable children's homes. Clearly, some voluntary agencies—I include independent fostering agencies that register as voluntary agencies—are interpreting the current regulations as allowing them to approve a pool of foster carers, whereas the regulations clearly state that that can be delegated only in relation to a particular child. Even that is not a function that can be delegated to a profit-making organisation, which they are as the profit is essentially the fee paid to families. The Minister might like to consider some of those issues and whether the way forward is for voluntary agencies to be registered as


suitable to approve their own foster parents. They could be registered either by the local authority or by the Department of Health.
The guidance circular states that premises should be inspected before placement to satisfy the authority that they are suitable in relation to the standards set out and then once a year thereafter by an officer from the placing authority. The standards referred to in the guidance are physical standards, and they are important. But my eye was struck by the fact that one of the things that the social worker has to inspect is whether there are any obvious fire risks. I can assure the Minister that when I was a social worker, I doubt whether I would have seen a fire risk if I had fallen over one. The investigation of fire risks should be left to the proper fire authority.
The guidance instructs that police checks should be carried out, but not that a personal reference should be taken up, when looking at the staff who will be caring for the children. Those staff should be interviewed to see that they understand the care that is necessary for the children. The guidance does not specifically say that that should include the proprietor of the home, who may not have the day-to-day care of the children. But the standards that he sets are important for the staff. Nor does it indicate whether a social worker interviewing the staff is entitled to have access to the application form to the agency that employs the carer. Proprietors are to be advised that matters of control and discipline should conform to those that relate to registered children's homes. There is no requirement, however, to keep a record of that.
As for the inspection that must take place before each placement, the guidance does not say by whom it should be done. I presume that it could be done by the placing social worker. If I was placing a child, I could go to the home in the morning, interview some of the staff—the police checks having been carried out—come back in the afternoon and place the child. Also, of course, the local authority that carries out the inspection does not receive one penny. If the homes were required to register, the local authority in the area in which the homes were resident would receive an income. Apart from anything else, requiring inspection before each placement of a child is not a cost-effective way of using resources.
As to the duties of the local authority in which the home resides, authorities placing children in homes in a different area must inform the geographical authority about the placement. The guidance says that the authority should inform itself about the welfare of those children. Does that mean that it has to visit? What responsibilities does it have? Who pays for the time that is required when visiting? Can it charge a fee? In the event of a tragedy, who bears the responsibilities? For example, for a fire, would it be the local authority officer who inspects, the placing social worker who visits or the geographical authority, which, apparently, should inform itself about the welfare of the children?
That will not do. The whole situation is ridiculous, full of anomalies and quite unjustifiable. We are talking about the most difficult children, who are often a danger to themselves and to others. In one children's home in Manchester, a mentally handicapped boy was tortured over time by two younger boys. I am saying that to illustrate some of the difficulties of behaviour that those children present. How can placing authorities fulfil their

responsibility 100 miles away from home? Let the Minister be in no doubt that children are being placed a considerable distance away.
Private agencies might indeed have found a market niche in offering placements for children who are difficult to place, but surely we should ensure that the care that they provide is of the same standard as that found in registrable children's homes.
Why are homes asked to register anyway? Presumably, it is to set out and maintain minimum standards for the physical environment in which the child is cared for, to ensure that the proprietor is a responsible person and to ensure that the people who inspect have an expertise in that and are not just the placing social worker.
I totally agree with standards being set, but why is it not good enough for small children's homes? There is no logic in it. In terms of the overriding principle of the welfare of the child, which underwrites the Children Act 1989, it is unjustifiable to have two-tier standards in private children's homes. Why should anyone go to the trouble of managing a registered children's home when the system allows an easy way out? I think that the Minister—I do not want him to take this personally—is being obstinate, because in the atmosphere of deregulation, he does not want to be seen to regulate. That is the only explanation that I can come up with for his refusal to make small homes register. That is not good enough for the welfare of children.

Mr. Keith Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) for her kind invitation to take part in the debate. She and I fought shoulder to shoulder in the long campaign for the registration of small private children's homes, and I wish to endorse the powerful argument that she made, but especially the new case that she made on the threat to conventional fostering arrangements.
It is now just over 12 months since my own Adjournment debate on the subject of children's homes in Streatham. In that debate, I highlighted the difficulties faced by the local community, and expressed concerns about the quality of care experienced by the young residents of those homes. I also sought to highlight the anxieties of the local community about the proliferation of small private children's homes in the area. Unfortunately, I have to tell the Minister that the problem has not gone away.
Let me cite a case that arrived on my desk within the past few days. Although I am entirely confident about the facts, I do not propose to name names—partly because the case is so recent and some of the relevant organisations have not had time to furnish me with their account, and partly because I understand that criminal charges are pending. Suffice it to say that the private home concerned is a small unit in the vicinity of Streatham common, and that life for local residents has been a great deal harsher since its establishment in the past 12 months.
This local example raises yet again all the question marks about the arrangements for small private children's homes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport and I have referred so frequently on the Floor of the House, and which—as we now know—have been exposed in two reports from the social services inspectorate. In this


case, the placing authorities were not local; that is fairly common, too. I am pleased to say that the London borough of Lambeth has adopted a policy of making no new placements in such homes.
There is a question mark, in this case, over the mechanism by which placing authorities are supposed to notify the geographical authority when young people are placed in such homes. The requirement is not obligatory, and the social services inspectorate has drawn attention to the inefficiency of the system and the frequent inaccuracy of registers in such homes.
There is also a question mark over the suitability for semi-independent living of very young people who may have criminal records, and the reliability with which the register of attendance of young people in such homes is maintained. That in itself reflects major questions about the quality of supervision—questions that my hon. Friend has raised—and the extent to which supervisors are continuously present on the premises, as they certainly ought to be.
It is totally unsatisfactory that youthful residents can be away from the premises at all hours of the day—and, in particular, the night—without the application of any disciplinary measures. It is even more unsatisfactory that grossly anti-social incidents may occur on the premises when supervisors are notionally present.
All that is known to the Government. All the problems were set out in the social services inspectorate's report of its study of small unregistered children's homes in the north-west, published in January last year. If recent press accounts are anything to go by, the current report following nationwide study by the inspectorate is even more damning. It reveals that the number of such homes is mushrooming; it also identifies new examples of sharp practice—claims for therapeutic services that are not provided on the premises, and the charging of enormous fees for special treatments that are also not provided. It raises big question marks about the background of those who run small private children's homes. It makes an overwhelming case for change, and for the proper registration and inspection of such homes.
We know that the report is in the Minister's hands, hut it must be said that the last social services inspectorate report languished in the Department of Health for two years. I hope that this evening the Minister will be able to assure us of the report's rapid publication, and of equally rapid Government action, which is now long overdue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am delighted to have the opportunity to do another pas de deux with the hon. Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—or, rather, a pas de trois. We have had the pleasure of discussing this important topic before, and I have no doubt that we will again.
Let me begin with the hon. Member for Stockport, who had the good fortune to be successful in the ballot.
As the hon. Lady knows, we met to discuss this issue on various occasions and following one of those meetings in September 1993, when I met her and Mr. Bob Lewis, the director of social services for Stockport, I confirmed in a letter dated 30 September that Mr. Lewis had agreed to try to establish through his contacts in the Association

of Directors of Social Services whether the problems that the hon. Lady had described were more widespread. I have to date not received any response from him on that point. The hon. Lady may like to raise that with him.
I also met the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Streatham in February last year. The hon. Member for Streatham also raised in an Adjournment debate in January last year, the topic of homes which are not subject to registration under the Children Act 1989.
The provisions of the Children Act and the regulations linked to them demonstrate our commitment to the protection of vulnerable children, and that does and must mean their protection in a disciplined and safe environment. We are aware of the difficulties faced by local authorities in caring for, and controlling, some of the young people whom it is their responsibility to look after, including children accommodated in small children's homes. I use the word "controlling". This is an important element in caring. My Department has issued guidance to local authorities on permissible forms of control in children's homes, including small homes. I know that problems of control have been perceived in the homes referred to by the hon. Member for Streatham.
All too often we hear of people responsible for homes who misunderstand their responsibilities and powers in this regard. For example, we hear of the reluctance in some cases to lock the doors at night, which to most of us seems a commonsense measure to ensure that children do not go out to places where they would be at risk and to ensure that intruders do not get in to harm the children.
As hon. Members know, following its study of children's homes in north-west England last year, I asked the social services inspectorate to look further at the provision of small unregistered homes. I do not have a report in my hands nor am I sitting on one. The hon. Member for Streatham has obviously seen a document that has not yet been submitted to me. I expect the inspectorate to report to me in the spring. I cannot comment on speculation about the inspectorate's findings in what was probably a recent issue of Community Care magazine, since they have not yet been reported to me.
Let me put all this in context by setting out the current requirements of the legislation relating to the arrangements for the care of children accommodated in small homes. Monitoring the standards of care in unregistered, small, private children's homes is the responsibility of the local authorities that place children in these establishments.
Local authorities have a duty under the Children Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children for whom they provide accommodation and maintenance. Local authorities must, as far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child and his or her parents, and must give due consideration to those wishes. The local authority is required to ensure, as far as possible, that the accommodation provided is near the child's home, to endeavour to promote contact between the child and his or her parents, and to keep the parents informed. When communication between a child and his or her parent is infrequent or non-existent, the local authority is required to appoint an independent visitor for the child.
Under the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991, the local authority responsible for looking after any child is required to record in writing the arrangements made for the


placement and for promoting the welfare of the child. The care plan and the plan for the placement of the child must cover the arrangements for contact with the family, the arrangements to be made for the time when the child is no longer accommodated by the local authority and whether plans need to be made to find a permanent substitute family for the child.
The local authority must arrange a medical examination and assessment for each child. The care plan must record the child's health history and the arrangements for medical and dental care and surveillance and any possible need for vaccination, immunisation and vision and hearing tests. The child's educational history must be recorded, as must any educational need and the action required to meet that need.
The record of all those arrangements must then be sent to the district health authority, the local education authority, the general practitioner, the local authority social services department, if a placement is not in the placing authority's area, and the parents. Records must be kept by the local authority for each child until he or she is 75.
The "local" local authority social services department must keep a register of every child in the establishment, with particulars as recorded in the care plan.
Under the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 the "placing" authority is required to review the case of each child within four weeks of when the child begins to be accommodated by the local authority; then after another three months and then at least every six months after this date.
Each review must examine the care plan already described, and include meetings with the local authority, the child, and others, including, of course, the parents. The child must be told, at each review, of the local authority's complaints procedure.
In addition to that considerable body of legislation, which came into force in 1991 and the accompanying volumes of guidance issued to local authorities at that time, in 1993, my Department issued an important circular, to which the hon. Lady referred, reminding authorities of the requirements of the regulations in relation to the placement of children in small homes and providing practice guidance.
The level of regulation of the care of the children accommodated in small unregistered private children's homes is already very rigorous, but I should like to refer to the actions taken by my Department to monitor the local authorities' care monitoring of the children looked after by them and accommodated in homes not subject to registration procedures.
The performance of local authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 is monitored primarily through the on-going inspection of social services by the social services inspectorate.
In addition, as I said earlier, in 1993, the inspectorate undertook a study, to which hon. Members referred, of small unregistered children's homes in the north-west of England. That report was published in February 1994. It highlighted many of the positive aspects of those small homes, particularly the opportunities they can provide for care to be tailored specifically to meet the needs of young people in more innovative and flexible ways than is often possible in larger units. It also emphasised, however, the

need for authorities to apply the Arrangements for the Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 and the Review of Children's Cases Regulations 1991 in a robust and rigorous manner. The report pointed out that where the home offers care which is equivalent to close parental care provided by one or two adults on a 24-hour basis, the Foster Placement (Children) Regulations 1991 might be more appropriately applied. I shall certainly consider carefully the hon. Lady's points about group fostering. She might like to write to me and provide fuller details about that.
The inspectorate has widened its study to cover all local authorities in England and, as I have already said, I await its report.
We have emphasised the need for authorities to apply the arrangements and regulations as robustly as possible. The hon. Lady may recall that a new requirement on small homes for adults to register with local authorities was introduced in 1993. On the face of it, one might wonder why the Government have seen fit to introduce such a measure in respect of adults but not children. The answer is, of course, that the very rigorous arrangements for placement and review regulations which I have described have no parallel in the legislation governing homes for adults, governed by the Registered Homes Act 1984. The regulation of the small homes for adults is a "lighter-touch" form of regulation, including annual returns of particulars to local authorities. There is no requirement on the local authority to inspect.
As I previously announced, my Department is collecting particulars to enable a gazetteer of children's homes, including small unregistered homes, to be produced. The information collection is nearly complete and returns have been provided by more than three quarters of local authorities. Perhaps I might mention in passing that that three quarters does not include Stockport. The hon. Lady might care to raise that issue with her director of social services. However, statistics will be available in the next few months.
I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman will agree that, while they are absolutely right to raise this issue and while it is vital that we keep the welfare of children in care under constant review wherever they are housed, the legislative arrangements already in place governing the care of children in small homes are, if used properly and in full, adequate to protect the welfare of the children, in so far as legislation can achieve this. I shall, of course, keep the matter under review and have said as much in the past. I shall keep an open mind about any further need to act and shall consider carefully any new evidence presented to me.

Ms Coffey: Will the Minister publish the report that is being completed, just as he allowed the social services study of homes in the north-west to be published and made publicly available?

Mr. Bowis: That is something that we always consider when we receive advice and guidance from our relevant experts. As of now, I do not know what form the reporting will take but we shall certainly consider the matter carefully and seek to ascertain, among other things, whether it is suitable for publication. The statistics from the gazetteer will, of course, be made known.

Ms Coffey: The Minister will understand that, if the report is not published, the view might be taken that the reason is that the information contained in it is highly embarrassing to the Government. There is such public interest in small children's homes, and surely the Minister can think of no reason that such a report should not be published.

Mr. Bowis: At this time of night, one should not encourage the hon. Lady to speculate about anything, and I shall certainly not speculate on a report that I have not yet seen or on what we shall do to bring the information to a wider audience.
I undertake to consider any new evidence presented to me, including any evidence from the social services inspectorate and any that my colleagues in this pas de trois care to bring to me now or in the future. I urge the hon. Member for Streatham to present me with chapter and verse in respect of the examples that he cited as it is much easier to proceed on that basis than on the basis of anecdotes. I am sure that we all understand that we have to base our policy on facts.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.